Chapter 3 A Neuro Disorders Public H Challenges

40 Neurological disorders: public health challenges
41
CHAPTER 3
neurological
disorders
a public health approach
in this chapter
42 3.1 Dementia
56 3.2 Epilepsy
70 3.3 Headache disorders
85 3.4 Multiple sclerosis

This chapter consists of 10 sections
95 3.5 Neuroinfections
that focus on the public health aspects
111 3.6 Neurological disorders associated with of the common neurological disorders
malnutrition
as outlined in the box. Although nota-
127 3.7 Pain associated with neurological disorders ble differences exist between relevant
public health issues for each neuro-
140 3.8 Parkinson’s disease
logical disorder, most sections cover
151 3.9 Stroke the following topics: diagnosis and
classification; etiology and risk fac-
164 3.10 Traumatic brain injuries
tors; course and outcome; magnitude
(prevalence, incidence, distribution
by age and sex, global and regional distribution); disability and mortality; burden
on patients’ families and communities; treatment, management and rehabilitation;
delivery and cost of care; gaps in treatment and other services; policies; research;
and education and training.
3.1 Dementia
43 Etiology and risk factors
43 Course and outcome

Dementia is a syndrome caused by disease of the
44 Epidemiology and burden
brain, usually of a chronic or progressive nature, in
46 Treatment and care which there is disturbance of multiple higher corti-
50 A public health framework cal functions, including memory, thinking, orienta-
tion, comprehension, calculation, learning capac-
52 Conclusions and recommendations
ity, language and judgement. Consciousness is not
54 Case-studies clouded. Dementia mainly affects older people: only
2% of cases start before the age of 65 years. After
this the prevalence doubles with every five-year increment in age. Dementia
is one of the major causes of disability in later life.
There are very many underlying causes of dementia. Alzheimer’s disease (AD), characterized by
cortical amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles is the most common, accounting for one half to
three quarters of all cases. Vascular dementia (VaD) is diagnosed when the brain’s supply of oxygen-
ated blood is repeatedly disrupted by strokes or other blood vessel pathology, leading to significant
accumulated damage to brain tissue and function. The distinction between AD and VaD has been
called into question, given that mixed pathologies are very common. Perhaps vascular damage is
no more than a cofactor accelerating the onset of clinically significant symptoms in people with AD.
There are a few rare causes of dementia that may be treated effectively by timely medical or surgical
intervention— these include hypercalcaemia, subdural haematoma, normal pressure hydrocephalus,
and deficiencies of thyroid hormone, vitamin B12 and folic acid. For the most part, altering the pro-
gressive course of the disorder is unfortunately not possible. Symptomatic treatments and support
can, however, transform the outcome for people with dementia and their caregivers.
Alzheimer and other dementias have been reliably identified in all countries, cultures and races
in which systematic research has been carried out, though levels of awareness vary enormously.
In India, for example, while the syndrome is widely recognized and named, it is not seen as a
medical condition. Indeed, it is often regarded as part of normal ageing (1).
For the purpose of making a diagnosis, clinicians focus in their assessments upon impairment
in memory and other cognitive functions, and loss of independent living skills. For carers and,
arguably, for people with dementia, it is the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia
(BPSD) that are most relevant. Nearly all studies indicate that BPSD are an important cause of
caregiver strain. They are a common reason for institutionalization as the family’s coping reserves
become exhausted. Problem behaviours may include agitation, aggression, calling out repeatedly,
sleep disturbance (day–night reversal), wandering and apathy. Common psychological symptoms
include anxiety, depression, delusions and hallucinations. BPSD occur most commonly in the
middle stage of dementia (see also the section on Course and outcome, below). Despite their sig-
nificance, there has been relatively little research into BPSD across cultures. One might anticipate
that cultural and environmental factors could have a strong influence upon both the expression
neurological disorders: a public health approach 43
of BPSD and their perception by caregivers as problematic (2). Behavioural and psychological
symptoms appear to be just as common in dementia sufferers in developing countries (3). In
some respects the developing country caregivers were more disadvantaged. Given the generally
low levels of awareness about dementia as an organic brain condition, family members could not
understand their relative’s behaviour, and others tended to blame the carers for the distress and
disturbance of the person they were looking after.
ETIOLOGY AND RISK FACTORS

The main risk factor for most forms of dementia is advanced age, with prevalence roughly doubling
every five years over the age of 65 years. Onset before this age is very unusual and, in the case
of AD, often suggests a genetic cause. Single gene mutations at one of three loci (beta amyloid
precursor protein, presenilin1 and presenilin2) account for most of these cases. For late-onset
AD both environmental (lifestyle) and genetic factors are important. A common genetic polymor-
phism, the apolipoprotein E (apoE) gene e4 allele greatly increases risk of going on to suffer from
dementia; up to 25% of the population have one or two copies (4, 5). However, it is not uncommon
for one identical twin to suffer from dementia and the other not. This implies a strong influence
of the environment (6). Evidence from cross-sectional and case–control studies suggests as-
sociations between AD and limited education (7 ) and head injury (8, 9), which, however, are only
partly supported by longitudinal (follow-up) studies (10). Depression is a risk factor in short-term
longitudinal studies, but this may be because depression is an early presenting symptom rather
than a cause of dementia (11). Recent research suggests that vascular disease predisposes to AD
as well as to VaD (12). Smoking seems to increase the risk for AD as well as VaD (13). Long-term
follow-up studies show that high blood pressure (14, 15) and high cholesterol levels (15) in middle
age each increase the risk of going on to develop AD in later life.
Reports from epidemiological studies of protective effects of certain prescribed medication,
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and cholesterol-
lowering therapies are now being investigated in randomized controlled trials. The randomized
controlled trial of HRT in postmenopausal women indicated, against expectation, that it increased
rather than lowered the incidence of dementia.
Despite many investigations, far too little is still understood about the environmental and
lifestyle factors linked to AD and other dementias. It may be that the focus on research in devel-
oped countries has limited possibilities to identify risk factors. Prevalence and incidence of AD
seem to be much lower in some developing regions (see the section on Epidemiology and burden,
below). This may be because some environmental risk factors are much less prevalent in these
settings. For example, African men tend to be very healthy from a cardiovascular point of view with
low cholesterol, low blood pressure and low incidence of heart disease and stroke. Conversely,
some risk factors may only be apparent in developing countries, as they are too infrequent in the
developed economies for their effects to be detected; for example, anaemia has been identified
as a risk factor in India (16).
COURSE AND OUTCOME

Dementia is usually a progressive disease and can be cured only if a reversible condition is identi-
fied as a cause and treated effectively. This happens in a small number of cases in the developed
world, but could be more common in developing countries, where relevant underlying physical
conditions (including marked nutritional and hormonal deficiencies) are more common.
Dementia affects every person in a different way. Its impact can depend on what the individuals
were like before the disease: their personality, lifestyle, significant relationships and physical health.
The problems linked to dementia can be best understood in three stages (see Box 3.1.1).
Times are given as guidelines only — sometimes people can deteriorate more quickly
and sometimes more slowly. Dementia reduces the lifespan of affected persons. In the
developed, high income countries, a person with dementia can expect to live for ap-
proximately 5–7 years after diagnosis. In low and middle income countries, diagnosis is
often much delayed, and survival in any case may be shorter. Again, of course, there is
much individual variation — some may live for longer, and some may live for shorter times
because of interacting health conditions.
Symptoms of dementia in early, middle and late stage of the disease are given in Box
3.1.1. It should be noted that not all persons with dementia will display all the symptoms.
Nevertheless, a summary of this kind can help caregivers to be aware of potential prob-
lems and can allow them to think about future care needs. At the same time, one must not
alarm people in the early stages of the disease by giving them too much information.
EPIDEMIOLOGY AND BURDEN

In 2005, Alzheimer’s Disease International commissioned a panel of experts to review
all available epidemiological data and reach a consensus estimate of prevalence in each
region and the numbers of people affected. Evidence from well-conducted, representative
epidemiological surveys was lacking in many regions. The panel estimated that, globally,
24.3 million people have dementia today, with 4.6 million new cases annually. Numbers
of people affected will double every 20 years to 81.1 million by 2040. Most people with
dementia live in developing countries: 60% in 2001 rising to an estimated 71% by 2040.
Rates of increase are not uniform; numbers in developed countries are forecast to increase
by 100% between 2001 and 2040, but by more than 300% in China, India and neighbour-
ing countries in South-East Asia and the Western Pacific. The detailed estimates contained
Box 3.1.1 Stages and symptoms of dementia (Alzheimer’s disease)
Early stage Middle stage Late stage

The early stage is often overlooked. As the disease progresses, limitations The late stage is one of nearly total
Relatives and friends (and sometimes become clearer and more restricting. dependence and inactivity. Memory
professionals as well) see it as “old The person with dementia has disturbances are very serious and the
age”, just a normal part of the ageing difficulty with day-to-day living and: physical side of the disease becomes
process. Because the onset of the ■ may become very forgetful, more obvious. The person may:
disease is gradual, it is difficult to especially of recent events and ■ have difficulty eating
be sure exactly when it begins. The people’s names ■ be incapable of communicating
person may: ■ can no longer manage to live alone ■ not recognize relatives, friends and
■ have problems talking properly without problems familiar objects
(language problems) ■ is unable to cook, clean or shop ■ have difficulty understanding what
■ have significant memory ■ may become extremely dependent is going on around them
loss — particularly for things that on family members and caregivers ■ be unable to find his or her way
have just happened ■ needs help with personal hygiene, around in the home
■ not know the time of day or the day i.e. washing and dressing ■ have difficulty walking
of the week ■ has increased difficulty with ■ have difficulty swallowing
■ become lost in familiar places speech ■ have bladder and bowel
■ have difficulty in making decisions ■ shows problems with wandering incontinence
■ become inactive and unmotivated and other behaviour problems ■ display inappropriate behaviour in
■ show mood changes, depression such as repeated questioning and public
or anxiety calling out, clinging and disturbed ■ be confined to a wheelchair or bed
■ react unusually angrily or sleeping
aggressively on occasion ■ becomes lost at home as well as
■ show a loss of interest in hobbies outside
and activities ■ may have hallucinations (seeing or
hearing things that are not there)
in this document (17) constitute the best available basis for policy-making, planning and allocation
of health and welfare resources.
There is a clear and general tendency for prevalence to be somewhat lower in developing
countries than in the industrialized world (18), strikingly so in some studies (19, 20). This trend
was supported by the consensus judgement of the expert panel convened by Alzheimer’s Disease
International, reviewing all available evidence (17 ). It does not seem to be explained merely by
differences in survival, as estimates of incidence are also much lower than those reported in
developed countries (21, 22). It may be that mild dementia is underdetected in developing coun-
tries because of difficulties in establishing the criterion of social and occupational impairment.
Differences in level of exposure to environmental risk factors might also have contributed. The
strikingly different patterns of mortality in early life might also be implicated; older people in very
poor countries are exceptional survivors — this characteristic may also confer protection against
AD and other dementias.
Long-term studies from Sweden and the United States of America suggest that the age-
specific prevalence of dementia has not changed over the last 30 or 40 years (23). Whatever
the explanation for the current discrepancy between prevalence in developed and developing
countries, it seems probable that, as patterns of morbidity and mortality converge with those of
the richer countries, dementia prevalence levels will do likewise, leading to an increased burden
of dementia in poorer countries.
Studies in developed countries have consistently reported AD to be more prevalent than VaD.
Early surveys from South-East Asia provided an exception, though more recent work suggests
this situation has now reversed. This may be due to increasing longevity and better physical
health: AD, whose onset is in general later than that of VaD, increases as the number of very old
people increases, while better physical health reduces the number of stroke sufferers and thus
the number with VaD. This change also affects the sex distribution among dementia sufferers,
increasing the number of females and reducing the number of males.
Disability, burden and cost

Dementia is one of the main causes of disability in later life. In a wide consensus consultation for
the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) report, disability from dementia was accorded a higher weight
than that for almost any other condition, with the exception of spinal cord injury and terminal
cancer. Of course, older people are particularly likely to have multiple health conditions — chronic
physical diseases affecting different organ systems, coexisting with mental and cognitive dis-
orders. Dementia, however, has a disproportionate impact on capacity for independent living,
yet its global public health significance continues to be underappreciated and misunderstood.
According to the GBD estimates in The world health report 2003, dementia contributed 11.2%
of all years lived with disability among people aged 60 years and over: more than stroke (9.5%),
musculoskeletal disorders (8.9%), cardiovascular disease (5.0%) and all forms of cancer (2.4%).
However, the research papers (since 2002) devoted to these chronic disorders reveal a starkly
different ordering of priorities: cancer 23.5%, cardiovascular disease 17.6%, musculoskeletal
disorders 6.9%, stroke 3.1% and dementia 1.4%.
The economic costs of dementia are enormous. These can include the costs of “formal care”
(health care, social and community care, respite care and long-term residential or nursing-home
care) and “informal care” (unpaid care by family members, including their lost opportunity to earn
income).
In the United Kingdom, direct formal care costs alone have been estimated at US$ 8 billion, or
US$ 13 000 per patient. In the United States, costs have been estimated at US$ 100 billion per year,
with patients with severe dementia costing US$ 36 794 each (1998 prices) (23, 24). A more recent
estimate is of US$ 18 billion annually in the United States for informal costs alone. In developed
countries, costs tend to rise as dementia progresses. When people with dementia are cared for at
home, informal care costs may exceed direct formal care costs. As the disease progresses, and the
need for medical staff involvement increases, formal care costs will increase. Institutionalization is
generally the biggest single contributor to costs of care.
Very little work has been done on evaluating the economic costs of dementia in developing
countries. Shah et al. (25) list five reasons for this: the absence of trained health economists, the
low priority given to mental health, the poorly developed state of mental health services, the lack
of justification for such services, and the absence of data sets. Given the inevitability that the
needs of frail older persons will come to dominate health and social care budgets in these regions,
more data are urgently needed.
Detailed studies of informal costs outside western Europe and North America are rare, but a
careful study of a sample of 42 AD patients in Denizli, Turkey, provides interesting data (26). For-
mal care for the elderly was rare: only 1% of old people in Turkey live in residential care. Families
therefore provide most of the care. The average annual cost of care (excluding hospitalization) was
US$ 4930 for severe cases and US$ 1766 for mild ones. Most costs increased with the severity
of the disease, though outpatient costs declined. Carers spent three hours a day looking after the
most severely affected patients.
The 10/66 Dementia Research Group also examined the economic impact of dementia in its
pilot study of 706 persons with dementia and their caregivers living in China, India, Latin America
and Nigeria (27 ). The key findings from this study are summarized in Box 3.1.2.
TREATMENT AND CARE

Early diagnosis is helpful so that the caregiver can be better equipped to deal with the disease
and to know what to expect. A diagnosis is the first step towards planning for the future. There
is no simple test to make a diagnosis. The diagnosis of AD is made by taking a careful account
of the person’s problems from a close relative or friend, together with an examination of the
person’s physical and mental state. It is important to exclude other conditions or illnesses that
cause memory loss, including depression, alcohol problems and some physical illnesses with
organic brain effects.
Currently there are no treatments that cure dementia. There is, however, evidence that drugs
(cholinesterase inhibitors), in some cases but not all, temporarily decelerate the progressive cogni-
tive decline that occurs in AD, and maybe in other forms of neurodegenerative dementia. These
drugs act on the symptoms but not on the disease itself; they make only a small contribution to
maintaining function. Evidence-based drug therapies are available for psychological symptoms
such as depression, anxiety, agitation, delusions and hallucinations that can occur in people
with dementia. There are modestly effective drugs (neuroleptics) available for the treatment of
associated behavioural problems such as agitation. All of these drugs should be used with cau-
tion (the doctrine being “start low, go slow”), particularly tricyclic antidepressants (because of
anticholinergic side-effects, therefore SSRI antidepressants — selective serotonin reuptake in-
hibitors — should always be preferred) and neuroleptics (because of anticholinergic side-effects,
sedation, and an increased risk of stroke and higher all-cause mortality).
It is important to recognize that non-drug interventions are often highly effective, and should
generally be the first choice when managing behavioural problems. The first step is to try to iden-
tify and treat the cause, which could be physical, psychological or environmental. Psychosocial
interventions, particularly the provision of information and support to carers, have been shown
to reduce the severe psychological distress often experienced by carers. Carers are also greatly
assisted by a network of community health and social services; self-help organizations, especially
Alzheimer associations, can also help them to find appropriate help. Carers can be educated about
dementia, countering lack of understanding and awareness about the nature of the problems
faced. They can also be trained to manage better most of the common behavioural symptoms,
in such a way that the frequency of the symptoms and/or the strain experienced by the carer is
reduced. Above all, the person with dementia and the family carers need to be supported over
the longer term. People with dementia need to be treated at all times with patience and respect
for their dignity and personhood; carers needs unconditional support and understanding — their
needs should also be determined and attended to.
Resources and prevention

Developing-country health services are generally ill-equipped to meet the needs of older persons.
Health care, even at the primary care level, is clinic-based; the older person must attend the clinic,
often involving a long journey and waiting time in the clinic, to receive care. Even if they can get to
the clinic the assessment and treatment that they receive are orientated towards acute rather than
chronic conditions. The perception is that the former are treatable, the latter intractable and not
within the realm of responsibility of health services. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group’s care-
giver pilot study in 2004 indicated that people with dementia were using primary and secondary
care health services. Only 33% of people with dementia in India, 11% in China and South-East Asia
and 18% in Latin America had used no health services at all in the previous three months. In all
centres, particularly in India and Latin America, there was heavy use of private medical services.
One may speculate that this reflects the caregivers’ perception of the relative unresponsiveness
of the cheaper government medical services.
The gross disparities in resources within and between developed and developing countries are
leading to serious concerns regarding the flouting of the central ethical principle of distributive
justice. New drug treatments are very expensive. Anticholinesterase therapies for AD are beyond
the reach of all but the richest families in most developing countries. The same would be true
for most SSRI antidepressants and “atypical” antipsychotic drugs, both of which are generally
favoured in the West for use in older patients over the older and cheaper tricyclic antidepressants
and “typical” antipsychotic drugs because of their better safety and side-effect profiles. The ad-
vent of a disease-modifying, as opposed to symptomatic, treatment for AD would introduce similar
ethical concerns regarding accessibility to those that have arisen in relation to the management of
HIV/AIDS in low income countries. Equity is also an important issue within developing countries.
Access to care is often entirely dependent upon means to pay. Quite apart from economic con-
straints, health-care resources are grossly unevenly distributed between rural and urban districts.
Most specialists, indeed most doctors, work in cities. Provision of even basic services to far-flung
rural communities is an enormous challenge.
Box 3.1.2 The 10/66 Dementia Research Group: key findings
From the development perspective, one of the key findings Caregivers were commonly in paid employment, and
from the study was that caregiving in the developing world almost none received any form of caring allowance. The
is associated with substantial economic disadvantage. A combination of reduced family incomes and increased
high proportion of caregivers had to cut back on their paid family expenditure on care is obviously particularly stress-
work in order to care. Many caregivers needed and obtained ful in lower income countries where so many households
additional support, and while this was often informal unpaid exist at or near subsistence level. While health-care ser-
care from friends and other family members, paid caregiv- vices are cheaper in low income countries, in relative
ers were also relatively common. terms families from the poorer countries spend a greater
People with dementia were heavy users of health ser- proportion of their income on health care for the person
vices, and associated direct costs were high. Compensa- with dementia. They also appear to be more likely to use
tory financial support was negligible; few older people in the more expensive services of private doctors, in pref-
developing countries receive government or occupational erence to government-funded primary care, presumably
pensions, and virtually none of the people with dementia in because this fails to meet their needs.
the 10/66 study received disability pensions. Source: (1).
Future development of services for older people needs to be tailored to suit the health systems
context. “Health systems” here can be taken to include macroeconomic factors, social structures,
cultural values and norms, and existing health and welfare policy and provision.
Specialists — neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and geriatricians — are far too scarce
a resource to take on any substantial role in the first-line care for people with dementia. The focus
must be upon primary care. Many developing countries have in place comprehensive community-
based primary care systems staffed by doctors, nurses and generic multipurpose health workers.
The need is for:
■ more training in the basic curriculum regarding diagnostic and needs-based assessments;
■ a paradigm shift beyond the current preoccupation with prevention and simple curative inter-
ventions to encompass long-term support and chronic disease management;
■ outreach care, assessing and managing patients in their own homes.
For many low income countries, the most cost-effective way to manage people with dementia
will be through supporting, educating and advising family caregivers. This may be supplemented
by home nursing or paid home-care workers; however, to date most of the growth in this area has
been that of untrained paid carers operating in the private sector. The direct and indirect costs
of care in this model therefore tend to fall upon the family. Some governmental input, whether
in terms of allowances for people with dementia and/or caregivers or subsidized care would be
desirable and equitable. The next level of care to be prioritized would be respite care, both in day
centres and (for longer periods) in residential or nursing homes. Such facilities (as envisaged in
Goa, for example) could act also as training resource centres for caregivers. Day care and resi-
dential respite care are more expensive than home care, but nevertheless basic to a community’s
needs, particularly for people with more advanced dementia.
Residential care for older people is unlikely to be a priority for government investment, when the
housing conditions of the general population remain poor, with homelessness, overcrowding and
poor sanitation. Nevertheless, even in some of the poorest developing countries (e.g. China and
India), nursing and residential care homes are opening up in the private sector to meet the demand
from the growing affluent middle class. Good quality, well-regulated residential care has a role to
play in all societies, for those with no family support or whose family support capacity is exhausted,
both as temporary respite and for provision of longer-term care. Absence of regulation, staff training
and quality assurance is a serious concern in developed and developing countries alike.
Similarly, low income countries lack the economic and human capital to contemplate wide-
spread introduction of more sophisticated services; specialist multidisciplinary staff and com-
munity services backed up with memory clinics and outpatient, inpatient and day care facilities.
Nevertheless, services comprising some of these elements are being established as demonstra-
tion projects. The ethics of health care require that governments take initial planning steps, now.
The one certainty is that “in the absence of clear strategies and policies, the old will absorb
increasing proportions of the resources devoted to health care in developing countries” (28). This
shift in resource expenditure is, of course, likely to occur regardless. At least, if policies are well
formulated, its consequences can be predicted and mitigated.
Prevention, where it can be achieved, is clearly the best option, with enormous potential
benefits for the quality of life of the individual, the family and carers, and for society as a whole.
Primary preventive interventions can be highly cost effective, given the enormous costs associated
with the care and treatment of those with dementia (see the section on Disability, burden and
cost, above). The primary prevention of dementia is therefore a relatively neglected area. Evidence
from the developed world suggests that risk factors for vascular disease, including hypertension,
smoking, type II diabetes, and hypercholesterolaemia may all be risk factors for AD as well as
VaD. The epidemic of smoking in developing countries (with 13% of African teenagers currently
smoking), and the high and rising prevalence of type II diabetes in South-East Asia (a forecast 57%
increase in prevalence between 2000 and 2010, compared with a 24% increase in Europe) should
therefore be particular causes of concern. It is as yet unclear whether the improvements in control
of hypertension, diet and exercise, and particularly the decline in smoking seen in developed
Western countries that has led to rapid declines in mortality from ischaemic heart disease and
stroke, will lead to a later decline in the age-specific incidence of AD and other dementias. Many
of these preventive measures are also likely to improve general health (29).
Delivery of care
All over the world the family remains the cornerstone of care for older people who have lost the capacity
for independent living, whether as a result of dementia or other mental disorder. However, stereotypes
abound and have the potential to mislead. Thus, in developed countries with their comprehensive
health and social care systems, the vital caring role of families, and their need for support, is often
overlooked. This is true for example in the United Kingdom, where despite nuclear family structures
and contrary to supposition, there is a strong tradition that persists today for local children to provide
support for their infirm parents. Conversely, in developing countries the reliability and universality of
the family care system is often overestimated. Older people are among the most vulnerable groups in
the developing world, in part because of the continuing myths that surround their place in society (30).
It is often assumed that their welfare is assured by the existence of the extended family. Arguably, the
greatest obstacle to providing effective support and care for older persons is the lack of awareness
of the problem among policy-makers, health-care providers and the community. Mythologizing the
caring role of the family evidently carries the risk of perpetuating complacency.
The previously mentioned 10/66 Dementia Research Group’s multicentre pilot study was the
first systematic, comprehensive assessment of care arrangements for people with dementia in
the developing world, and of the impacts upon their family caregivers (27 ). As in the EUROCARE
study with data from 14 European countries (31), most caregivers in developing countries were
older women caring for their husbands or younger women caring for a parent. Caring was associ-
ated with substantial psychological strain as evidenced by high rates of psychiatric morbidity and
high levels of caregiver strain. These parameters were again very similar to those reported in the
EUROCARE study. Some aspects, however, were radically different. People with dementia in de-
veloping countries typically live in large households, with extended families. Larger families were
associated with lower caregiver strain; however, this effect was small and applied only where the
principal caregiver was co-resident. Indeed, it seemed to operate in the opposite direction where
the caregiver was non-resident, perhaps because of the increased potential for family conflict.
In many developing countries, traditional family and kinship structures are widely perceived as
under threat from the social and economic changes that accompany economic development and
globalization (30). Some of the contributing factors include the following:
■ Changing attitudes towards older people.
■ The education of women and their increasing participation in the workforce (generally seen
as key positive development indicators); tending to reduce both their availability for caregiving
and their willingness to take on this additional role.
■ Migration. Populations are increasingly mobile as education, cheap travel and flexible labour
markets induce young people to migrate to cities and abroad to seek work. In India, Venkoba
Rao has coined an acronym to describe this growing social phenomenon: PICA — parents in
India, children abroad. “Push factors” are also important. In the economic catastrophe of the
1980s, two million Ghanaians left the country in search of economic betterment; 63% of older
persons have lost the support of one or more of their children who have migrated to distant
places in Ghana or abroad. Older people are particularly vulnerable after displacement as a
result of war or natural disaster.
■ Declining fertility in the course of the final demographic transition. Its effects are perhaps most
evident in China, where the one-child family law leaves increasing numbers of older people,
particularly those with a daughter, bereft of family support.
■ In sub-Saharan Africa, changing patterns of morbidity and mortality are more relevant; the
ravages of the HIV/AIDS epidemic have “orphaned” parents as well as children, as bereaved
older persons are robbed of the expectation of economic and practical support into later life.
A PUBLIC HEALTH FRAMEWORK

At its 20th annual conference held in Kyoto, Japan, Alzheimer’s Disease International released a Kyoto
Declaration, benchmarking progress in ten key areas using a public health framework developed by
WHO (see Table 3.1.1). The framework addresses treatment gaps, policies, research and training and
identifies three levels of attainment for countries with low, medium and high levels of resources, hence
suggesting a feasible, pragmatic series of actions and objectives for health systems at all levels of
development.
Table 3.1.1 Minimum actions required for dementia carea

Ten overall Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
recommendations Low level of resources Medium level of resources High level of resources
1. Provide Recognize dementia care as a Develop locally relevant training Improve effectiveness of
treatment in component of primary health materials management of dementia in
primary care care Provide refresher training to primary health care
Include the recognition and primary care physicians (100% Improve referral patterns
treatment of dementia in coverage in five years)
training curricula of all health
personnel
Provide refresher training to
primary care physicians (at least
50% coverage in five years)
2. Make Increase availability of essential Ensure availability of essential Provide easier access to newer
appropriate drugs for the treatment of drugs in all health-care settings drugs (e.g. anticholinesterase
treatments dementia and associated Make effective caregiver agents) under public or private
available psychological and behavioural interventions generally available treatment plans
symptoms
Develop and evaluate basic
educational and training
interventions for caregivers
3. Give care in Establish the principle that Initiate pilot projects on Develop alternative residential
the community people with dementia are best integration of dementia care facilities
assessed and treated in their with general health care Provide community care
own homes Provide community care facilities (100% coverage)
Develop and promote standard facilities (at least 50% Give individualized care in the
needs assessments for use in coverage with multidisciplinary community to people with
primary and secondary care community teams, day care, dementia
Initiate pilot projects on respite and inpatient units
development of multidisciplinary for acute assessment and
community care teams, day treatment)
care and short-term respite According to need, encourage
care the development of residential
Move people with dementia out and nursing-home facilities,
of inappropriate institutional including regulatory framework
settings and system for staff training
and accreditation
Ten overall Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

recommendations Low level of resources Medium level of resources High level of resources
4. Educate the Promote public campaigns Use the mass media to promote Launch public campaigns for
public against stigma and awareness of dementia, foster early help-seeking, recognition
discrimination positive attitudes, and help and appropriate management of
Support nongovernmental prevent cognitive impairment dementia
organizations in public and dementia
education
5. Involve Support the formation of self- Ensure representation of Foster advocacy initiatives
communities, help groups communities, families, and
families and Fund schemes for consumers in policy-making,
consumers nongovernmental organizations service development and
implementation
6. Establish Revise legislation based on Implement dementia care Ensure fairness in access to
national current knowledge and human policies at national and primary and secondary health
policies, rights considerations subnational levels care services, and to social
programmes Formulate dementia care Establish health and social care welfare programmes and
and legislation programmes and policies: budgets for dementia care benefits
– Legal framework to support Increase the budget for mental
and protect those with impaired health care
mental capacity
– Inclusion of people with
dementia in disability benefit
schemes
– Inclusion of caregivers in
compensatory benefit schemes
Establish health and social care
budgets for older persons
7. Develop human Train primary health-care Create a network of national Train specialists in advanced
resources workers training centres for physicians, treatment skills
Initiate higher professional psychiatrists, nurses,
training programmes for psychologists and social
doctors and nurses in geriatric workers
psychiatry and medicine
Develop training and resource
centres
8. Link with other Initiate community, school and Strengthen community Extend occupational health
sectors workplace dementia awareness programmes services to people with early
programmes dementia
Encourage the activities of Provide special facilities in the
nongovernmental organizations workplace for caregivers of
people with dementia
Initiate evidence-based mental
health promotion programmes
in collaboration with other
sectors
9. Monitor Include dementia in basic health Institute surveillance for early Develop advanced monitoring
community information systems dementia in the community systems
health Survey high-risk population Monitor effectiveness of
groups preventive programmes
10. Support more Conduct studies in primary Institute effectiveness and Extend research on the causes
research health-care settings on the cost–effectiveness studies for of dementia
prevalence, course, outcome community management of Carry out research on service
and impact of dementia in the dementia delivery
community Investigate evidence on the
prevention of dementia
a
Based on overall recommendations from The world health report 2001 (32).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1 Dementia is a disease and not a part of normal ageing.
2 Dementia affects some 24 million people, most of them elderly, worldwide. Up to two
thirds live in low and middle income countries.
3 Awareness of dementia is very low in all world regions, a problem leading to
stigmatization and inefficient help-seeking.
4 No cure is currently available for the most common causes of dementia, but much can
and should be done to improve the quality of life of people with dementia and their
carers.
5 Governments should be urged to take account of the needs of people with dementia, as
an integral part of a comprehensive programme of health and welfare services for older
people.
6 The priority should be to strengthen primary care services, through training and
reorientation from clinic-based acute treatment services to provision of outreach and
long-term support.
7 Governments, nongovernmental organizations working in the area of Alzheimer and other
dementias, professionals and carers need to work together to raise awareness, counter
stigma and improve the quality and coverage of care services.
REFERENCES
1. Shaji KS et al. Caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a qualitative study from the Indian 10/66
Dementia Research Network. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 2002, 18:1–6.
2. Shah A, Mukherjee S. Cross-cultural issues in measurement of BPSD. Aging and Mental Health, 2000,
4:244–252.
3. Ferri CP, Ames D, Prince M. Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia in developing countries.
International Psychogeriatrics, 2004, 16:441–459.
4. Saunders AM et al. Association of apolipoprotein E allele e4 with late-onset familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s
disease. Neurology, 1993, 43:1467–1472.
5. Nalbantoglu J et al. Predictive value of apolipoprotein E genotyping in Alzheimer’s disease: results of an
autopsy series and an analysis of several combined studies. Annals of Neurology, 1994, 36:889–895.
6. Breitner JC et al. Alzheimer’s disease in the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council
Registry of Aging Twin Veterans. III. Detection of cases, longitudinal results, and observations on twin
concordance. Archives of Neurology, 1995, 52:763–771.
7. Ott A et al. Prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia: association with education. The
Rotterdam study. BMJ, 1995, 310:970–973.
8. Mortimer JA et al. Head trauma as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: a collaborative re-analysis of
case-control studies. EURODEM Risk Factors Research Group. International Journal of Epidemiology, 1991,
20(Suppl. 2):S28–S35.
9. Mayeux R. Synergistic effects of traumatic head injury and apolipoprotein-epsilon 4 in patients with
Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 1995, 45:555–557.
10. Stern Y et al. Influence of education and occupation on the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease. JAMA, 1994,
271:1004–1010.
11. Devanand DP et al. Depressed mood and the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in the elderly living in the
community. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1996, 53:175–182.
12. Hofman A et al. Atherosclerosis, apolipoprotein E, and prevalence of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in the
Rotterdam Study. Lancet, 1997, 349:151–154.
13. Ott A et al. Smoking and risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in a population-based cohort study: the
Rotterdam Study. Lancet, 1998, 351:1841–1843.
14. Skoog I et al. 15-year longitudinal study of blood pressure and dementia. Lancet, 1996, 347:1141–1145.
15. Kivipelto M et al. Midlife vascular risk factors and Alzheimer’s disease in later life: longitudinal, population
based study. BMJ, 2001, 322:1447–1451.
16. Pandav RS et al. Hemoglobin levels and Alzheimer disease: an epidemiologic study in India. American
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 2004, 12:523–526.
17. Ferri CP et al. Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet, 2005, 366:2112–2117.
18. Prince M. Methodological issues in population-based research into dementia in developing countries. A
position paper from the 10/66 Dementia Research Group. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 2000,
15:21–30.
19. Chandra V et al. Prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in rural India. The Indo-US study.
Neurology, 1998, 51:1000–1008.
20. Hendrie HC et al. Prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia in two communities: Nigerian Africans and
African Americans. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1995, 152:1485–1492.
21. Hendrie HC et al. Incidence of dementia and Alzheimer disease in 2 communities: Yoruba residing in Ibadan,
Nigeria, and African Americans residing in Indianapolis, Indiana. JAMA, 2001, 285:739–747.
22. Chandra V et al. Incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in a rural community in India: the Indo-US study.
Neurology, 2001, 57:985–989.
23. Prince M. Epidemiology of dementia. Vol. 3 Psychiatry. Abingdon, Medicine Publishing Company Ltd., 2004
(Part 12:11–13).
24. Sadik K, Wilcock G. The increasing burden of Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Disease and Associated
Disorders, 2003, 17(Suppl. 3):S75–S79.
25. Shah A, Murthy S, Suh GK. Is mental health economics important in geriatric psychiatry in developing
countries? International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 2002, 17:758–764.
26. Zencir M et al. Cost of Alzheimer’s disease in a developing country setting. International Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry, 2005, 20:616–622.
27. 10/66 Dementia Research Group. Care arrangements for people with dementia in developing countries.
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 2004, 19:170–177.
28. Kalache A. Ageing is a Third World problem too. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 1991, 6:617–
618.
29. Lautenschlager NT, Almeida OP, Flicker L. Preventing dementia: why we should focus on health promotion
now. International Psychogeriatrics, 2003, 15:111–119.
30. Tout K. Ageing in developing countries. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989.
31. Schneider J et al. EUROCARE: a cross-national study of co-resident spouse carers for people with
Alzheimer’s disease. I: Factors associated with carer burden. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry,
1999, 14:651–661.
32. The world health report 2001 – Mental health: new understanding, new hope. Geneva, World Health
Organization, 2001.
RECOMMENDED READING
For professionals
■ Burns A, O’Brien J, Ames D, eds. Dementia, 3rd ed. London, Hodder Arnold, 2005.
■ Draper B, Melding P, Brodaty H, eds. Psychogeriatric service delivery: an international perspective. New York,
Oxford University Press, 2004.
For carers and non-medical readers
■ Cayton H, Graham N, Warner J. Dementia – Alzheimer’s and other dementias, 2nd ed. London, Class
Publishing, 2003 (translated into several languages).
■ Shenk D. The forgetting. Understanding Alzheimer’s disease: a biography of disease. London, Harper Collins,
2003.
■ Bryden C. Dancing with dementia. My story of living positively with dementia. London, Jessica Publishers,
2005.
Box 3.1.3 Case-study: Brazil
Brazil has among the 11 largest populations of elderly peo- The majority of Brazilians (75%) are cared for by the
ple in the world; eight of these populations are in develop- federal programme SUS (Unified Health System) while the
ing countries. According to the Brazilian 2000 census, there remainder are in the hands of a private system. Primary
are 10 million people aged 65 years and over, correspond- care is provided primarily by the Family Health Programme,
ing to about 6% of the whole population. It is predicted in which health professionals go to the patient’s home for
that by 2050 the elderly population will have increased by periodic health evaluation and management; however, this
over 300%, whereas the population as a whole will have in- programme covers only 40% of the population. Specialists
creased only by over 30%. Brazil has also one of the highest (geriatricians, psychiatrists and neurologists) see referred
rates of urbanization in the world with almost one third of patients as outpatients and inpatients. Long-term care is
the whole population living in only three metropolitan ar- scarce and is mostly provided by religious organizations
eas (São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Belo Horizonte), as well for those with severe disability and limited family support.
as one of the highest levels of inequality between the rich Community care is generally available in metropolitan
and the poor with almost 50% of the national income con- areas, but only from private providers for those who can
centrated among the richest 10% of the population. Most afford the charges. Home care provided by SUS is being
elderly people live in large cities in poverty. introduced but still covers only a small proportion of the
According to a recent consensus on the global preva- elderly population.
lence of dementia, Brazil has today 729 000 people with While the current health system does not meet the needs
dementia; this number is estimated to increase to 1.4 mil- of older people, there are encouraging developments. The
lion by 2020 and to 3.2 million by 2040. Dementia in Brazil Brazilian Psychiatric Association has a Geriatric Psychia-
is still a hidden problem and there is little awareness of it. try section promoting training in dementia assessment
Most elderly people live with their spouses or extend- and care; the geriatricians and neurologists have similar
ed family (only 15% live alone and fewer than 1% live in initiatives. Four universities have research programmes in
institutions). Families with one or more elderly members dementia. Several regional nongovernmental organizations
are relatively advantaged because of the means-tested work to support people with dementia and their caregivers;
non-contributory pension benefits for older Brazilians, in- these are united in a federation — Federação Brasileira de
troduced in the 1990s. However, the informal support that Associaçãoes de Alzheimer (FEBRAZ) — which is a mem-
family caregivers can offer to their relations in more need ber of Alzheimer’s Disease International.
is still difficult because of impoverishment.
Box 3.1.4 Case-study: India
In India, life expectancy has gone up from 20 years at the (which includes home visits) is preferred and this leads to a
beginning of the 20th century to 62 years at present. Bet- higher out-of-pocket cost for dementia care. Carers experi-
ter medical care and low fertility have made the elderly ence significant burdens and health strain. More than 80%
population the fastest growing section of society. India has of carers are female and around 50% are spouses who are
over one billion people, 16% of the world’s population: it themselves quite old. People with dementia are often ne-
is estimated that the growth in the elderly population is glected, ridiculed and abused. Old-age homes do not admit
5–8% higher than growth in the total population. The con- people with dementia.
sequence is that, while in 2001 there were 70 million peo- These research findings led to the implementation of
ple aged over 60 years, by 2025 there will be an estimated the Dementia Home Care Project which was supported by
177 million. WHO. In this project, a flexible, stepped-care intervention
According to a recent consensus, the prevalence of de- was adopted to empower the carers with knowledge and
mentia in India is 1.9% over the age of 60 years. In the skills to manage the person with dementia at home. The
context of the large population and demographic transition, intervention was implemented by locally trained home
the total numbers are estimated to more than treble in the care advisers under supervision. This not only helped in
next 35 years, reaching over six million by 2040. The public decreasing the stress of looking after a person with demen-
health and socioeconomic implications are enormous. tia, but also helped the caregivers to manage behavioural
The joint family system — the traditional support sys- problems and thus reduced the number of deaths in the
tem for frail elderly people — is crumbling because of the intervention group.
migration of the younger generation to the cities in search Evidence from research has helped the advocacy cam-
of better prospects. The women who traditionally took on paign in India. There is a need to make dementia a public
the role of caregivers are also working and cannot spend health priority and create a network of home care advisers
as much time caring for the elderly. Dementia is considered to provide supportive and educational interventions for the
as a normal part of ageing and is not perceived as requiring family caregivers through the primary health-care system
medical care. Thus primary health-care physicians rarely in India.
see this condition in their clinical work. Private medical care
Box 3.1.5 Case-study: Nigeria
Nigeria is the most populous African country, with about Usually record-keeping, accountability and political will
130 million inhabitants. According to United Nations es- are poor, so that many elderly people who retire do not re-
timates, it is likely that the figure of 0.5 million (4.7% of ceive their benefits. Recently the Federal Government has
the whole population) people over 60 years of age in 2000 introduced a contributory pension scheme, but in the past
will have more than trebled by 2040 (1.8 million people, i.e. elderly people found it difficult to learn about and access
7.5% of the population). Old people have traditionally been their entitlements. Elderly Nigerians are among the poorest
cared for within the extended family. Social and economic groups in the country.
changes have disrupted this system, however, especially A national policy on elderly care was published in 2003,
by young people moving into the towns and leaving the old and a National Implementation Plan is now under way, but
people to cope on their own. No effective alternatives have is being piloted only among certain Federal civil servants.
been provided for their care. Assessing the extent of dementia among this huge,
Specialist health services are in short supply. In 2005 varied and shifting population is not easy, but what little
there were only about 77 psychiatrists and three occupa- research has been done suggests prevalence rates for de-
tional therapists in the country. Industrial therapy was not mentia may be low. Interest in the mental health of elderly
offered anywhere. Specialist social workers are few and Nigerians is only just beginning: for example in the past
work under severe limitations. There are no specialist ser- three years, old-age mental health clinics have been es-
vices for the elderly (geriatric or psychogeriatric services, tablished at two universities. There is no formal training
meals on wheels, respite care or drop-in centres) and few for geriatric medicine and psychiatry. Anti-dementia drugs
nursing homes. There is no insurance cover for medical are rarely available.
services for elderly people.
3.2 Epilepsy
58 Epidemiology
59 Burden on patients, families and communities Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder affecting
62 Treatment, rehabilitation and cost both sexes and all ages, with worldwide distribu-
tion. The term is also applied to a large group of
63 Research
conditions characterized by common symptoms
64 Education and training called “epileptic seizures”, which may occur in the
65 Partnerships within and beyond the health system context of a brain insult that can be systemic, toxic
67 Conclusions and recommendations or metabolic. These events (called provoked or acute
symptomatic seizures) are presumed to be an acute
manifestation of the insult and may not recur when the underlying cause has
been removed or the acute phase has elapsed.
Epilepsy has been defined as “a disorder of the brain characterized by an enduring predisposition
to generate epileptic seizures, and by the neurobiological, cognitive, psychological and social
consequences of this condition. The definition of epilepsy requires the occurrence of at least
one epileptic seizure” (1). An epileptic seizure is defined as “a transient occurrence of signs
and/or symptoms due to abnormal excessive or synchronous neuronal activity in the brain” (1).
These definitions recognize that a diagnosis of epilepsy implies the existence of a persistent
epileptogenic abnormality that is present whether seizures occur or not, as well as that there
may be consequences of this persistent abnormality other than the occurrence of seizures that
can cause continuous disability between seizure occurrence (interictally). Because it is often dif-
ficult to identify definitively an enduring predisposition to generate epileptic seizures, a common
operational definition of epilepsy is the occurrence of two or more non-provoked epileptic seizures
more than 24 hours apart.
Differential diagnosis of transient events that could represent epileptic seizures involves first
determining that the events are epileptic, then distinguishing between provoked epileptic seizures
and a chronic epileptic condition. Febrile seizures in infants and young children and withdrawal
seizures in alcoholics are common examples of provoked seizures that do not require a diagnosis
of epilepsy. If seizures are recurrent, it is next necessary to search for an underlying treatable
cause. If such a cause cannot be found, or if it is treated and seizures persist, then treatment of
seizures is guided by diagnosis of the specific seizure type(s), and syndrome if present (see Box
3.2.1).
Etiology and risk factors

Epileptic conditions are multifactorial disorders, and it is useful to discuss three important factors.
The first factor is predisposition, or threshold. Anyone with a functioning brain is capable of having
a seizure; however, seizures occur more easily in some people than in others. The ease with which
a seizure can be provoked, or an epileptic condition can be induced, is referred to as a threshold.
Individual differences in threshold are largely attributable to genetic variations but could also be
acquired, such as certain types of perinatal injuries, which can alter threshold. Threshold is a dy-
namic phenomenon; it varies throughout the day, it also changes in relation to hormonal influences
during the menstrual cycle in women. Stimulant drugs lower seizure threshold and sedative drugs
increase it; however, withdrawal from sedative drugs can lower threshold and provoke seizures.
Antiepileptic drugs work by increasing seizure threshold.
The second important factor for epilepsy is the epileptogenic abnormality itself. Epilepsies
attributable to identifiable brain defects are referred to as symptomatic epilepsies. Symptomatic
epilepsies can be caused by a variety of disorders, including brain malformations, infections,
vascular disturbances, neoplasms, scars from trauma, including strokes, and disorders of cerebral
metabolism. Treatment for symptomatic epilepsy is most effective if it is directed at the underlying
cause. The most common symptomatic epilepsy is temporal lobe epilepsy, usually associated
with a characteristic lesion called “hippocampal sclerosis”. Hippocampal sclerosis appears to be
caused by cerebral injury within the first few years of life in individuals with a genetic predisposi-
tion to this condition. Some forms of epilepsy are unassociated with identifiable structural lesions
or diseases and are usually unassociated with other neurological or mental deficits. These are
genetically transmitted, generally easily treated with medications without sequelae, and referred
to as idiopathic epilepsies.
The third important factor is the precipitating condition, which determines when seizures occur.
Common precipitating factors include fever for children with febrile seizures, alcohol and sedative
drug withdrawal, sleep deprivation, stimulant drugs and — in some patients — stress. Reflex
seizures are precipitated by specific sensory stimuli. The most common are photosensitive seizures
induced by flickering light, but some patients have very specific reflex epilepsy with seizures precip-
itated by such stimuli as being startled, particular types of music, certain visual patterns, reading,
eating and hot-water baths. Identification of precipitating factors is helpful if they can be avoided,
but in most patients specific precipitating factors are not apparent, and may not exist at all.
Patients with a high seizure threshold can experience severe epileptogenic brain injuries and
precipitating factors but never have seizures, while those with low seizure thresholds can develop
epilepsy with minimal insults and, in many, from precipitating factors alone (provoked seizures).
COURSE AND OUTCOME

Because there are many types of seizures and epilepsy, there is no single course or outcome.
Prognosis depends on the seizure type, the underlying cause, and the syndrome when this can
be determined. Approximately one in 10 individuals will experience at least one epileptic seizure
in their lifetime, but only one third of these will go on to have epilepsy. There are a number of
idiopathic epilepsy syndromes characterized by onset at a certain age, and specific seizure types.
Those that begin in infancy and childhood, such as benign familial neonatal seizures, benign
childhood epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes, and childhood absence epilepsy, usually remit
spontaneously, while those that begin in adolescence, the juvenile idiopathic epilepsies, are often
lifelong. Most of these are easily treated with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), with no neurological or
Box 3.2.1 Types of epileptic seizure
I. Generalized onset II. Focal onset III. Neonatal

A. Clonic and tonic seizures A Local
B Absences 1 Neocortical
C Myoclonic seizure types 2 Limbic
D Epileptic spasms B With ipsilateral propagation
E Atonic seizures C With contralateral spread
D Secondarily generalized
Source: adapted from (2).

mental sequelae. Slowly, the genetic basis of these idiopathic epilepsies is being revealed, and
there appears to be considerable diversity in that single-gene mutations can give rise to more than
one syndrome, while single syndromes can be caused by more than one gene mutation.
The prognosis of symptomatic epilepsies depends on the nature of the underlying cause.
Epilepsies attributable to diffuse brain damage, such as West syndrome and Lennox–Gastaut
syndrome, are characterized by severely disabling medically refractory “generalized” seizures,
mental retardation and often other neurological deficits. Epilepsies resulting from smaller lesions
may be associated with “focal” seizures that are more easily treated with drugs and can remit
spontaneously as well. When pharmacoresistant focal seizures are due to localized structural
abnormalities in one hemisphere, such as hippocampal sclerosis in temporal lobe epilepsy, they
can often be successfully treated by localized resective surgery. Some patients with more diffuse
underlying structural lesions that are limited to one hemisphere can also be treated surgically with
hemispherectomy or hemispherotomy.
Whereas 80–90% of patients with idiopathic epilepsies can expect to become seizure free, and
many will undergo spontaneous remission, the figure is much lower for patients with symptomatic
epilepsy, and perhaps only 5–10% of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy and hippocampal scle-
rosis will have seizures that can be controlled by pharmacotherapy. Of these patients, however,
60–80% can become free of disabling seizures with surgery. Advances in neurodiagnostics,
particularly neuroimaging, are greatly facilitating our ability to determine the underlying causes
of seizures in patients with symptomatic epilepsies and to design more effective treatments,
including surgical interventions.
EPIDEMIOLOGY
Incidence of epilepsy and unprovoked seizures
The annual incidence of unprovoked seizures is 33–198 per 100 000, and the incidence of epilepsy
is 23–190 per 100 000 (3). The overall incidence of epilepsy in Europe and North America ranges
from 24 and 53 per 100 000 per year, respectively (4–6). The incidence in children is eventually
higher and even more variable, ranging from 25 to 840 per 100 000 per year, most of the differ-
ences being explained by the differing populations at risk and by the study design (3). In developing
countries, the incidence of the disease is higher than that in industrialized countries and is up to 190
per 100 000 (3, 7). Although one might expect a higher exposure to perinatal risk factors, infections
and traumas in developing countries, the higher incidence of epilepsy may be also explained by the
different structure of the populations at risk, which is characterized by a predominant distribution
of young individuals and a short life expectancy.
Incidence by age, sex and socioeconomic status

In industrialized countries, epilepsy tends to affect mostly the individuals at the two extremes
of the age spectrum. The peak in the elderly is not detected in developing countries, where the
disease peaks in the 10–20-year age group (8). This may depend on the age structure of the
population and on a relative under-ascertainment of the disease in older individuals.
The incidence of epilepsy and unprovoked seizures has been mostly reported to be higher in men
than in women in both industrialized and developing countries, though this finding has rarely attained
statistical significance. The different distribution of epilepsy in men and women can be mostly ex-
plained by the differing genetic background, the different prevalence of the commonest risk factors
in the two sexes, and the concealment of the disease in women for sociocultural reasons.
The incidence of epilepsy is higher in the lower socioeconomic classes. This assumption is sup-
ported by the comparison between industrialized and developing countries and by the comparison,
within the same population, of people of different ethnic origin (9).
Prevalence of epilepsy
The overall prevalence of epilepsy ranges from 2.7 to 41 per 1000 population, though in the major-
ity of reports the rate of active epilepsy (i.e. at least one seizure in the preceding five years) is in the
range 4–8 per 1000 (5, 10). The prevalence of active epilepsy is generally lower in industrialized
countries than in developing countries, which may reflect a lower prevalence of selected risk
factors (mostly infections and traumas), a more stringent case verification, and the exclusion of
provoked and unprovoked isolated seizures.
Prevalence by age, sex and socioeconomic status

In industrialized countries, the prevalence of epilepsy is lower in infancy and tends to increase
thereafter, with the highest rate occurring in elderly people (10). Where available, age-specific
prevalence rates of lifetime and active epilepsy from developing countries tend to be higher in the
second (254 vs 148 per 1000) and third decades of life (94 vs 145 per 1000) (8). The differences
between industrialized and developing countries may be mostly explained by the differing distribu-
tion of the risk factors and by the shorter life expectancy in the latter.
As with incidence, prevalence of epilepsy tends to be higher in men. However, this finding is
not consistent across studies and, with few exceptions, is not statistically significant.
Socioeconomic background has been found to affect the frequency of epilepsy reports in
both industrialized and developing countries. In developing countries, prevalence rates have been
shown to be greater in the rural compared with the urban context (11, 12) or in the lower compared
with the higher socioeconomic classes. However, opposite figures were reported in a meta-analy-
sis of epidemiological studies from India (13), which suggests that rural and urban environments
should not be invariably used as proxies of lower vs higher socioeconomic conditions.
Mortality
The mortality rate of epilepsy ranges from 1 to 8 per 100 000 population per year, but international
vital statistics give annual mortality rates of 1–2 per 100 000 (14). Based on a meta-analysis of
studies investigating mortality in the past 100 years, the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) for
epilepsy, which is the ratio between the deaths observed among patients with epilepsy and the
deaths expected in a reference population with a similar age distribution, was found to range
from 1.3 to 9.3 (15). The SMR for epilepsy ranges from 1.6 to 5.3 in children and adults and is
inversely correlated with age (16). The higher SMRs may be partly explained by the inclusion of
provoked seizures. The highest mortality risk in the youngest age groups can be interpreted in
part in the light of the underlying epileptogenic conditions and the lower number of competing
causes of death.
It is extremely difficult to analyse the epilepsy death rate in the general population of a devel-
oping country because incidence studies of epilepsy are difficult to perform, death certificates
are unreliable and often unavailable, and the cause of death is difficult to determine. Based on
available data, it seems that the mortality rate of epilepsy in developing countries is generally
higher than that reported in developed countries. These data cannot be generalized, however, as
they have been obtained from selected populations (17 ).
BURDEN ON PATIENTS, FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES

Worldwide, 50 million people have epilepsy. Many more people, however — an estimated
200 000 000 — are also affected by this disorder, as they are the family members and friends of
those who are living with epilepsy. Around 85% of people with epilepsy live in developing coun-
tries. There are two million new cases occurring in the world every year. Up to 70% of people with
epilepsy could lead normal lives if properly treated, but for an overwhelming majority of patients
this is not the case (18).
Epilepsy is among the disorders that are strongly associated with significant psychological
and social consequences for everyday living (19). People with hidden disabilities such as epilepsy
are among the most vulnerable in any society. While their vulnerability may be partly attributed
to the disorder itself, the particular stigma associated with epilepsy brings a susceptibility of its
own. Stigmatization leads to discrimination, and people with epilepsy experience prejudicial and
discriminatory behaviour in many spheres of life and across many cultures (20).
People with epilepsy experience violations and restrictions of both their civil and human rights.
Civil rights violations such as unequal access to health and life insurance or prejudicial weighting
of health insurance provisions, withholding of the right to obtain a driving licence, limitations
to the right to enter particular occupations and the right to enter into certain legal agreements,
in some parts of the world even marriage, are severely aggravated by epilepsy. Discrimination
against people with epilepsy in the workplace and in respect of access to education is not uncom-
mon for many people affected by the condition. Violations of human rights are often more subtle
and include social ostracism, being overlooked for promotion at work, and denial of the right
to participate in many of the social activities taken for granted by others in the community. For
example, ineligibility for a driving licence frequently imposes restrictions on social participation
and choice of employment.
Informing people with epilepsy of their rights and recourse is an essential activity. Considering
the frequency of rights violations, the number of successful legal actions is very small. People
are often reluctant to be brought into the public eye, so a number of cases are settled out of
court. The successful defence of cases of rights abuse against people with epilepsy will serve
as precedents, however, and will be helpful in countries where there are actions afoot to review
and amend legislation.
Epidemiological assessment of the global burden of epilepsy

Overall, epilepsy contributed more than seven million DALYs (0.5%) to the global burden of disease
in 2000 (21, 22). Figure 3.2.1 shows the distribution of DALYs or lost years of healthy life attribut-
able to epilepsy, both by age group and by level of economic development. It is apparent that
close to 90% of the worldwide burden of epilepsy is to be found in developing regions, with more
than half occurring in the 39% of the global population living in countries with the highest levels
of premature mortality (and lowest levels of income). An age gradient is also apparent, with the
vast majority of epilepsy-related deaths and disability in childhood and adolescence occurring in
developing regions, while later on in the life-course the proportion drops on account of relatively
greater survival rates into older age by people living in more economically developed regions.
Figure 3.2.1 Distribution of the global burden of epilepsy, by age group and
level of economic development
100
90
Percentage of global burden
80 40% 42% 41% 40% 37%

70 55% 56%
64%
60
78%
50 26%
29%
40 35% 33%
42%
30 34% 32%
20 29%
31% 37%
18% 22% 26%
10 17%
7% 11% 12%
0 4%
0–4 5–14 15–29 30–44 45–59 60–69 70–79 80+ Total
Age group
N Developed regions N Low mortality developing regions N High mortality developing regions
Source (22).
Economic assessment of the national burden of epilepsy

Economic assessments of the national burden of epilepsy have been conducted in a number of high
income countries (e.g. 23, 24) and more recently in India (25), all of which have clearly shown the
significant economic implications the disorder has in terms of health-care service needs, premature
mortality and lost work productivity. For example, the Indian study calculated that the total cost per
case of these disease consequences for epilepsy amounted to US$ 344 per year (equivalent to 88%
of average income per capita), and that the total cost for the estimated five million cases resident
in India was equivalent to 0.5% of gross national product. Since such studies differ with respect to
the exact methods used, as well as underlying cost structures within the health system, they are
currently of most use at the level of individual countries, where they can serve to draw attention to
the wide-ranging resource implications and needs of people living with epilepsy.
The avertable burden of epilepsy

Having established the attributable burden of epilepsy, two subsequent questions for decision-
making and priority setting relate to avertable burden (the proportion of attributable burden that
is averted currently or could be avoided via scaled-up use of proven efficacious treatments) and
resource efficiency (determination of the most cost-effective ways of reducing burden). Figure
3.2.2 provides a schematic overview of these concepts.
As part of a wider WHO cost–effectiveness work programme (26), information has been gener-
ated concerning the amount of burden averted by the current or scaled-up use of treatment with
AEDs, together with estimates of cost and cost–effectiveness (27). Effectiveness was expressed
in terms of DALYs averted and costs were expressed in international dollars. Compared with a
“do nothing” scenario (i.e. the untreated natural history of epilepsy), results from nine developing
epidemiological subregions suggest that extending AED treatment coverage to 50% of primary
epilepsy cases would avert 150–650 DALYs per million population (equivalent to 13–40% of the
current burden), at an annual cost per case of International $ 55–192. Older first-line AEDs (phe-
nobarbitone, phenytoin) were most cost effective on account of their similar efficacy but lower
acquisition cost (International $ 800–2000 for each DALY averted). In all nine developing regions,
the cost of securing one extra healthy year of life was less than average per capita income.
Extending coverage further to 80% or even 95% of the target population would evidently avert
more of the burden still, and would remain an efficient strategy despite the large-scale investment
in manpower, training and drug supply/distribution that would be required to implement such a
programme. The results for one developing subregion in Africa — consisting of 20 countries with
a high rate of child mortality and a very high level of adult mortality — are depicted in Figure 3.2.2
Figure 3.2.2 Attributable and avertable burden of epilepsy in an

epidemiological subregion of Africa
100
Combined effectiveness (%)
Not avertable with first line AEDs (40%)
60
Already averted Avertable via scaling up of

(current AEDs) cost effective AEDs*
19% +13% +19% +9%
0 25 50 80 100
Effective coverage in population (%)
* Each DALY averted costs less than average per capita income.
Source: schema (28); data (27 ).
(27, 28), which divides the total attributable burden of epilepsy into three categories: burden that is
averted by AEDs at current levels of effective treatment coverage (19%); burden that is avertable
via the scaling-up of AEDs (to a further 41% if complete coverage is reached); and burden that is
not avertable via AEDs (estimated to be 40%, though this assumes that the current level of drug
compliance would prevail).
TREATMENT, REHABILITATION AND COST

The primary focus of care for patients with epilepsy is the prevention of further seizures, which may,
after all, lead to additional morbidity or even mortality (29). The goal of treatment should be the
maintenance of a normal lifestyle, preferably free of seizures and with minimal side-effects of the
medication. Up to 70% of people with epilepsy could become seizure free with AED treatment.
In 25–30% of people with epilepsy the seizures cannot be controlled with drugs. Epilepsy
surgery is a safe and effective alternative treatment in selected cases. Investment in epilepsy
surgery centres, even in the poorest regions, could greatly reduce the economic and human
burden of epilepsy. There is a marked treatment gap with respect to epilepsy surgery, however,
even in industrialized countries.
Attention to the psychosocial, cognitive, educational and vocational aspects is an important
part of comprehensive epilepsy care (30). Epilepsy imposes an economic burden both on the
affected individual and on society, e.g. the disorder commonly affects young people in the most
productive years of their lives, often leading to avoidable unemployment.
Over the past years, it has become increasingly obvious that severe epilepsy-related difficulties
can be seen in people who have become seizure free as well as in those with difficult-to-treat
epilepsies. The outcome of rehabilitation programmes would be a better quality of life, improved
general social functioning and better functioning in, for instance, performance at work and im-
proved social contacts (31).
In 1990, WHO identified that the average cost of medication (phenobarbitone) could be as low
as US$ 5 per person per year (32). From an economic point of view also, therefore, it is an urgent
public health challenge to make effective epilepsy care available to all who need it, regardless of
national and economic boundaries.
Prevention
Currently, epilepsy tends to be treated once the condition is established, and little is done in
terms of prevention. In a number of people with epilepsy the cause for the condition is unknown;
prevention of this type of epilepsy is therefore currently not possible (33, 34). A sizeable number of
people with epilepsy will have known risk factors, but some of these are not currently amenable to
preventive measures. These include cases of epilepsy attributable to cerebral tumours or cortical
malformations and many of the idiopathic forms of epilepsy.
One of the most common causes of epilepsy is head injury, particularly penetrating injury. Pre-
vention of the trauma is clearly the most effective way of preventing post-traumatic epilepsy, with
use of head protection where appropriate (for example, for horse riding and motorcycling) (34).
Epilepsy can be caused by birth injury, and the incidence should be reduced by adequate
perinatal care. Fetal alcohol syndrome may also cause epilepsy, so advice on alcohol use before
and during pregnancy is important. Reduction of childhood infections by improved public hygiene
and immunization can lessen the risk of cerebral damage and the subsequent risk of epilepsy
(33, 34).
Febrile seizures are common in children under five years of age and in most cases are benign,
though a small proportion of patients will develop subsequent epilepsy. The use of drugs and other
methods to lower the body temperature of a feverish child may reduce the chance of having a
febrile convulsion and subsequent epilepsy, but this remains to be seen.
Epilepsy may be a complication of various infections of the central nervous system (CNS),
such as cysticercosis and malaria (35, 36). These conditions are more prevalent in the tropical
belt, where low income countries are concentrated. Elimination of the parasite in the environ-
ment would be the most effective way to reduce the burden of epilepsy worldwide, but education
concerning how to avoid infection can also be effective.
To sum up, currently the prevention of epilepsy may be possible in cases caused by head
trauma and by infections and infestations of the CNS, but would require intensive efforts to
improve basic sanitation, education and practice. Most cases of epilepsy at the current state of
knowledge are probably not preventable but, as research improves our understanding of genetics
and structural abnormalities of the brain, this may change.
Treatment gap
Worldwide, the proportion of patients with epilepsy who at any given time remain untreated is
large, and is greater than 80% in most low income countries (33, 34). The size of this treatment
gap reflects either a failure to identify cases or a failure to deliver treatment. In most situations,
however, both factors will apply. Inadequate case-finding and treatment have various causes,
some of which are specific to low income countries. They include people’s attitudes and beliefs,
government health policies and priorities (or the lack of them), treatment costs and drug avail-
ability, as well as the attitude, knowledge and practice of health workers. In addition, there is
clear scarcity of epilepsy-trained health workers in many low income countries. The lack of trained
personnel and a proper health delivery infrastructure are major problems, which contribute to
the overall burden of epilepsy. For instance, in most sub-Saharan countries there is no resident
neurologist and there are no scanning facilities using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (35).
This situation is found in many other resource-poor countries and is usually more acute in rural
areas. The lack of trained specialists and medical facilities needs to be seen in the context of
severe deficiencies in health delivery that apply not only to epilepsy but also to the whole gamut
of medical conditions. Training medical and paramedical personnel and providing the necessary
investigatory and treatment facilities will require tremendous effort and financial expenditure
and will take time to achieve. The aim should be to provide high standards of epilepsy care with
equitable access to all who need them throughout the world.
There is a dearth of epilepsy services, trained personnel and AEDs, which contributes to a mas-
sive diagnostic and treatment gap in epilepsy that is more pronounced in low income countries.
A huge effort is required to equalize care for people with epilepsy around the world. Improvement
of the care delivery system and infrastructure alone are not a sufficient strategy but need to be
supplemented by education of patients, their families and the general public.
RESEARCH
Despite the significant advances in understanding epileptogenic mechanisms and in counteracting
their pathological consequences, the problem still has to be faced of treating more effectively the se-
vere epilepsies and of preventing their unfavourable evolution (37). So far, research has been unsuc-
cessful in developing effective strategies capable of preventing the development of the pathogenic
process, set in motion by different etiological factors, that leads ultimately to chronic epilepsies (38).
To do so, it is important to take advantage of the results that are continuously being made available to
the scientific community thanks to the synergy of basic and clinical multidisciplinary research. This
means that the clinical applicability of neurobiological results should be evaluated, the way in which
the new information can be translated into diagnostic and therapeutic terms should be assessed,
and ad hoc guidelines and recommendations should be produced accordingly.
In elaborating their health-care strategies, regional and national communities should not simply
refer to the available scientific information, but should also contribute to it by means of their own
original investigations. This is mandatory if they are to meet specific local requirements taking into
account the socioeconomic situations in which health-care policy is to be formulated. Important
actions have been undertaken by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) through its vari-
ous commissions (on genetics, neurobiology, psychobiology, epidemiology, therapeutic strategies,
diagnostic methods and health-care policy) to help developing countries in establishing research
projects oriented to their specific problems. Moreover, ILAE is active in promoting international
collaborative research networks, facilitating partnerships between developed and developing
countries, promoting fellowships and grant programmes and in sensitizing the relevant interna-
tional institutions such as the World Bank, WHO and the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to epilepsy research (39). A specific project for collaborative
studies involving developed and developing countries is part of the triennial action plan of the
Global Campaign Against Epilepsy. The project aims to stimulate and facilitate the synergy be-
tween countries in different economic situations that is particularly important for epidemiological
and genetic studies and clinical trials of new AEDs.
The main point here is that research is not a matter of technology; rather, it is the result of
an intellectual attitude aimed at understanding and improving the principles upon which every
medical activity should be based. Therefore, everybody whose work concerns epilepsy can and
should contribute to the advancement of epileptology to the benefit of the millions of human
beings suffering from epilepsy, no matter how advanced the technological context of his or her
current work.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Education and training programmes aimed at improving the expertise of health-care providers
play an essential role in fostering epilepsy care throughout the world. The need for an integrated,
multidisciplinary approach to epilepsy care prompted several countries to organize annual epilepsy
courses for neurologists, general practitioners, technicians and nurses at national level.
Multinational programmes are being implemented on the basis of the pioneering experience
of ILAE’s European Epilepsy Academy (EUREPA), which has developed two innovative educational
models: train-the-trainers courses and European Epileptology Certification. The aim of the train-
the-trainers courses is to turn experienced personnel into qualified teachers of epileptology. It
significantly contributes to raising the profile of epilepsy care across Europe and is now being
implemented in other regions. European Epileptology Certification can be obtained by completing
an 18-month educational programme based on periods of training in selected institutions that
allow the accumulation of credits.
EUREPA is also developing an important project of distance education in epileptology. Some mod-
ules have been completed and successfully tested: the course on genetics of epilepsy has already
been evaluated (40). An annual residential Epilepsy Summer School for young epileptologists from
all over the world exists at Venice’s International School of Neurological Sciences; since 2002, it has
trained students from 64 countries. The interaction between students and teachers and among the
students themselves resulted in several ongoing international collaborative projects that are further
contributing to raising the profile of epilepsy care in several developing areas (41).
The philosophy on which the educational initiatives of ILAE and EUREPA are based is an
interactive relationship that stimulates the active participation of students. The theoretical teach-
ing, based either on residential courses or distance education systems, includes an interactive
discussion of clinical cases and practical training programmes in qualified epilepsy centres. A
further effort is needed to expand exchange programmes for visiting students from economically
disadvantaged countries.
PARTNERSHIPS WITHIN AND BEYOND THE HEALTH SYSTEM

Partnerships within and beyond the health system are essential in order to achieve a world in which
no person’s life is limited by epilepsy. As the President of ILAE put it, “we all have a shared interest
in that we want to improve epilepsy care throughout the world”. Such partnerships include:
■ nongovernmental organizations, which are themselves partnerships as they are made up of
individuals who have common goals and interests;
■ patients and professionals at national, regional and global levels, in order to raise awareness
of epilepsy and stimulate research;
■ patient and professional nongovernmental organizations and WHO, in order to decrease the
treatment gap;
■ patients, professionals and politicians, for example to develop national health-care pro-
grammes;
■ foundations and charitable organizations, who support the work of the nongovernmental or-
ganizations both financially and with human resources;
■ health-care providers, to try to improve the availability, accessibility and affordability of treat-
ment;
■ the private sector, especially the pharmaceutical industry.
ILAE/IBE/WHO Global Campaign Against Epilepsy

The problems related to provision of care and treatment to people with epilepsy are too complex
to be solved by individual organizations, therefore the three leading international organizations
working in the field of epilepsy (ILAE, the International Bureau for Epilepsy (IBE) and WHO) joined
forces to create the Global Campaign Against Epilepsy. The Campaign aims to provide better
information about epilepsy and its consequences and to assist governments and those concerned
with epilepsy to reduce the burden of the disorder. Its strategy, specific objectives and activities
are summarized in Box 3.2.2.
To date, over 90 countries are involved in the Campaign. As part of general awareness-raising,
regional conferences on public health aspects of epilepsy have been organized in all six regions
of WHO with the participation of over 1300 delegates from the epilepsy organizations (IBE and
Box 3.2.2 ILAE/IBE/WHO Global Campaign Against Epilepsy
Objectives Strategy Activities

■ To increase public and profes- ■ To provide a platform for general ■ Organization of regional con-
sional awareness of epilepsy as awareness ferences followed by Regional
a universal and treatable brain ■ To assist departments of health in Declarations
disorder the development of national pro- ■ Assessment of country resources
■ To raise epilepsy to a new plane grammes on epilepsy for epilepsy worldwide
of acceptability in the public ■ Assistance with the development
domain of regional reports
■ To promote public and profes- ■ Development of educational
sional education about epilepsy materials
■ To identify the needs of people ■ Coordination of demonstration
with epilepsy at national and re- projects
gional levels
■ To encourage governments and
departments of health to address
the needs of people with epilepsy,
including awareness, education,
diagnosis, treatment, care, ser-
vices and prevention
ILAE), public health experts from governments and universities and representatives from WHO
headquarters and regions.
The goals of the conferences were to review the present situation of epilepsy care in the region,
to identify the country’s needs and resources to control epilepsy at a community level, and to
discuss the involvement of countries in the Campaign. As a result of these consultations, Regional
Declarations summarizing perceived needs and proposing actions to be taken were developed and
adopted by the conference participants.
In order to make an inventory of country resources for epilepsy worldwide, a questionnaire
was developed by an international group of experts in the field. On the basis of the data collected
through this questionnaire, regional reports were developed. These reports provide a panoramic
view of the epilepsy situation in each region, outline the various initiatives that were taken to
address the problems, define the current challenges and offer appropriate recommendations
(32, 42).
The next logical step in the assessment of country resources was the comprehensive analysis
of the data. Within the framework of the WHO Atlas Project, launched by WHO in 2002 to provide
information about health resources in different countries, the analysis was summarized in the
Atlas of Epilepsy Care in the World (30). The epilepsy atlas has been produced in collaboration
with the ILAE/IBE/WHO Global Campaign Against Epilepsy using ILAE and IBE chapters and WHO
networks. The atlas provides global and regional analyses on epilepsy resources and is another
result of the fruitful collaboration between ILAE, IBE and WHO (43).
One of the main activities aiming to assist countries in the development of their national pro-
grammes on epilepsy is the initiation and implementation of demonstration projects. The ultimate
goal of these projects is the development of a variety of successful models of epilepsy control
that may be integrated into the health-care systems of the participating countries and regions. In
general terms, each demonstration project has four aspects:
■ assessing whether knowledge and attitudes of the population are adequate, correcting misin-
formation and increasing awareness of epilepsy and how it can be treated;
■ assessing the number of people with epilepsy and estimating how many of them are appro-
priately treated;
■ ensuring that people with epilepsy are properly served by health personnel equipped for their
task;
■ analysing the outcome and preparing recommendations for those who wish to apply the find-
ings to the improvement of epilepsy care in their own and other countries.
In summary, it may be concluded that the collaboration of ILAE, IBE and WHO within the frame
of the Global Campaign has been very successful and led to significant achievements in various
areas such as raising public and professional awareness and education, development of effective
modules for epilepsy control, and assessment and analysis of epilepsy resources in all countries
of the world.

1 Epilepsy is one of the most common serious neurological disorders worldwide with no
age, racial, social class, national or geographic boundaries.
2 Worldwide, 50 million people have epilepsy. Around 85% of these live in developing
countries.
3 Up to 70% of people with epilepsy could lead normal lives if properly treated, but for an
overwhelming majority of patients this is not the case.
4 The worldwide incidence, prevalence and mortality of epilepsy are not uniform and
depend on several factors, which include the structure of the local population, the basic
knowledge of the disease, the socioeconomic and cultural background, the presence of
environmental risk factors, and the distribution of infrastructure, financial, human and
material resources.
5 Some forms of epilepsy, particularly those associated with CNS infections and trauma,
may be preventable.
6 As epileptic seizures respond to drug treatment, the outcome of the disease depends on
the early initiation and continuity of treatment. Difficulties with availability of or access
to treatment (the treatment gap) may seriously impair the prognosis of epilepsy and
aggravate the social and medical consequences of the disease.
7 In low income countries the treatment gap needs to be seen in the context of the local
situation, with inadequate resources for all forms of health delivery as well as education
and sanitation.
8 The treatment gap is not only a matter of the lack of availability of AEDs, but
encompasses the lack of infrastructure, training and public awareness of the condition. All
these areas need to be confronted.
9 Integration of epilepsy care in national health systems needs to be promoted by
developing models for epilepsy control worldwide.
REFERENCES
1. Fisher RS et al. Epileptic seizures and epilepsy. Definitions proposed by the International League against
Epilepsy (ILAE) and the International Bureau for Epilepsy (IBE). Epilepsia, 2005, 46:470–472.
2. Engel J Jr. Report of the ILAE Classification Core Group. Epilepsia, 2006, 47:1558–1568.
3. Kotsopoulos IA et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence studies of epilepsy and unprovoked
seizures. Epilepsia, 2002, 43:1402–1409.
4. Hauser WA, Annegers JF, Kurland LT. The incidence of epilepsy and unprovoked seizures in Rochester,
Minnesota, 1935–1984. Epilepsia, 1993, 34:453–468.
5. Forsgren L. Epidemiology and prognosis of epilepsy and its treatment. In: Shorvon S et al., eds. The
treatment of epilepsy, 2nd ed. Malden, MA, Blackwell Science, 2004:21–42.
6. Forsgren L et al. The epidemiology of epilepsy in Europe – a systematic review. European Journal of
Neurology, 2005, 12:245–253.
7. Preux P-M, Druet-Cabanac M. Epidemiology and aetiology of epilepsy in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet
Neurology, 2005, 4:21–31.
8. Bharucha NE, Shorvon SD. Epidemiology in developing countries. In: Engel J Jr, Pedley TA, eds. Epilepsy: a
comprehensive textbook. Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott-Raven, 1997:105–118.
9. Shamansky SL, Glaser GH. Socioeconomic characteristics of childhood seizure disorders in the New Haven
area: an epidemiologic study. Epilepsia, 1979, 20:457–474.
10. Hauser WA. Incidence and prevalence. In: Engel J Jr, Pedley TA, eds. Epilepsy: a comprehensive textbook.
Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott-Raven, 1997:47–57.
11. Placencia M et al. Epileptic seizures in an Andean region of Ecuador. Incidence and prevalence and regional
variation. Brain, 1992, 115:771–782.
12. Aziz H et al. Comparative epidemiology of epilepsy in Pakistan and Turkey: population-based studies using
identical protocols. Epilepsia, 1997, 38:716–722.
13. Sridharan R, Murthy BN. Prevalence and pattern of epilepsy in India. Epilepsia, 1999, 40:631–636.
14. Massey EW, Schoenberg BS. Mortality from epilepsy. International patterns and changes over time.
Neuroepidemiology, 1985, 4:65–70.
15. Shackleton DP et al. Survival of patients with epilepsy: an estimate of the mortality risk. Epilepsia, 2002,
43:445–450.
16. Jallon P. Mortality in patients with epilepsy. Current Opinion in Neurology, 2004, 17:141–146.
17. Carpio A et al. Mortality of epilepsy in developing countries. Epilepsia, 2005, 46(Suppl. 11):28–32.
18. Shorvon SD, Farmer PJ. Epilepsy in developing countries: a review of epidemiological, sociocultural, and
treatment aspects. Epilepsia, 1988, 29(Suppl. 1):36–54.
19. Baker GA. The psychosocial burden of epilepsy. Epilepsia, 2002, 43(Suppl. 6):26–30.
20. Pahl K, Boer HM de. Epilepsy and rights. In: Atlas: Epilepsy care in the world. Geneva, World Health
Organization, 2005:72–73.
21. Leonardi M, Ustun B. The global burden of epilepsy. Epilepsia, 2002, 43(Suppl. 6):21–25.
22. The world health report 2004 – Changing history. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2004: Annex Table 3
(http://www.who.int/whr/annex/topic/en/annex_3_en.pdf).
23. Begley CE et al. The cost of epilepsy in the United States: an estimate from population-based and survey
data. Epilepsia, 2000, 41:342–351.
24. Cockerell OC et al. The cost of epilepsy in the United Kingdom: an estimation based on the results of two
population-based studies. Epilepsy research, 1994, 18:249–260.
25. Thomas SV et al. Economic burden of epilepsy in India. Epilepsia, 2001, 42:1052–1060.
26. Tan Torres T et al. Making choices in health: a WHO guide to cost–effectiveness analysis. Geneva, World
Health Organization, 2003.
27. Chisholm D. Cost-effectiveness of first-line anti-epileptic drug treatments in the developing world: a
population-level analysis. Epilepsia, 2005, 46:751–759.
28. Investing in health research and development. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Health Research related to
Future Intervention Options. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1996.
29. Kwan P, Brodie MJ. Refractory epilepsy: a progressive, intractable but preventable condition? Seizure, 2002,
11:77–84.
30. Atlas: Epilepsy care in the world. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2005.
31. Brodie MJ, Boer HM de, Johannessen SI (Guest editors). European White Paper on epilepsy. Epilepsia, 2003,
44(Suppl. 6):1–88.
32. Epilepsy in the Western Pacific Region – A call to action. Manila, World Health Organization Regional Office
for the Western Pacific, 2004.
33. Sander JW. Prevention of epilepsy. In: Shorvon SD et al., eds. The management of epilepsy in developing
countries: an ICBERG manual. London, Royal Society of Medicine, 1991. International Congress and
Symposium Series, No. 175:19–21.
34. Dreifuss FE. Critical review of health care for epilepsy. In: Engel J Jr, Pedley T, eds. Epilepsy: a
comprehensive textbook. Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott-Raven, 1997:2903–2906.
35. Pal DK, Carpio A, Sander JW. Neurocysticercosis and epilepsy in developing countries. Journal of
Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 2000, 68:137–143.
36. Carter JA et al. Increased prevalence of epilepsy associated with severe falciparum malaria in children.
Epilepsia, 2004, 45:978–981.
37. Arroyo S et al. Is refractory epilepsy preventable? Epilepsia, 2002, 43:437–444.
38. Walker MC, White HS, Sander JWAS. Disease modification in partial epilepsy. Brain, 2002, 125:1937–1950.
39. ILAE strategic plan. Brussels, International League Against Epilepsy, 2005 (http://www.ILAE.org).
40. May T, Pfäfflin M. Evaluation of the distance learning course on Genetics of Epilepsy. Bielefeld, European
Epilepsy Academy, 2005 (http://www.epilepsy-academy.org).
41. ILAE annual report 2005. Brussels, International League Against Epilepsy, 2005 (http://www.ILAE.org).
42. Global Campaign Against Epilepsy. Epilepsy in the WHO African Region: bridging the gap. Brazzaville, World
Health Organization Regional Office for Africa, 2004 (AFR/MNH/04.1).
43. Dua T et al. Epilepsy care in the world: results of an ILAE/IBE/WHO Global Campaign Against Epilepsy
survey. Epilepsia, 2006, 47:1225–1231.
RECOMMENDED READING
■ Annegers JF et al. Incidence of acute symptomatic seizures in Rochester, Minnesota: 1935–1984. Epilepsia,
1995, 36:327–333.
■ Beghi E. Aetiology of epilepsy. In: Shorvon SD et al., eds. The treatment of epilepsy, 2nd ed. Malden, MA,
Blackwell Science, 2004:50–63.
■ Engel J Jr. Report of the ILAE Classification Core Group. Epilepsia, 2006, 47:1558–1568.
■ Engel J Jr, Pedley TA. The comprehensive CD-ROM on epilepsy. Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott, Williams &
Wilkins, 1999.
■ Engel J Jr. Epilepsy: global issues for the practicing neurologist. New York, Demos Medical Publishing, 2005
(World Federation of Neurology: Seminars in Clinical Neurology).
■ Hauser WA. Epidemiology of epilepsy. In: Gorelick PB, Alter M, eds. Handbook of neuroepidemiology. New
York, Marcel Dekker, 1994:315–353.
■ Hauser WA, Hesdorffer DC, eds. Epilepsy: frequency, causes and consequences. New York, Demos Medical
Publishing, 1990.
■ Shorvon SD, Farmer PJ. Epilepsy in developing countries: a review of epidemiological, sociocultural and
treatment aspects. Epilepsia, 1988, 29(Suppl. 1):S36–S54.
■ Tomson T. Mortality studies in epilepsy. In: Jallon P et al., eds. Prognosis of epilepsies. Paris, John Libbey,
2003:12–21.
■ Tomson T et al. Medical risks in epilepsy: a review with focus on physical injuries, mortality, traffic ac-
cidents and their prevention. Epilepsy Research, 2004, 60:1–16.
■ Atlas: Epilepsy care in the world. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2005.
■ The world health report 2001 – Mental health: new understanding, new hope. Geneva, World Health
Organization, 2001.
3.3 Headache disorders

72 Types of headache disorders
Headache is a painful feature of a relatively small
number of primary headache disorders, some of
75 Barriers to care
which are widespread and are often life-long con-
76 Management and prevention ditions. Headache also occurs as a characteris-
78 Therapeutic interventions tic symptom of many other conditions; these are
80 Follow-up and referral termed secondary headache disorders. Collectively,
80 Health-care policy headache disorders are among the most common
81 Partnerships within and beyond the health system disorders of the nervous system, causing substan-
tial disability in populations throughout the world.
81 Research
82 Conclusions and recommendations
Figure 3.3.1 Population-based epidemiological

Population-based studies
epidemiological of ofmigraine
studies migraine
13.2
11.6
10.0
14.7 15.5
14.7 14.3
11.7 23.2
8.2 10.2 9.6 8.4
14.0
13.3 16.7 5.9
11.6
12.2
8.5 22.3
7.7
10.0 13.5
10.1
8.5
3.0 9.0
9.3
8.2
8.2
5.3 12.6 5.0
16.3
Africa 4.0 (2 studies)

7.3 Asia 10.6 (6 studies
5.0 Europe 13.8 (9 studies)
N. America 12.6 (8 studies)
Oceania –
1 year prevalence % S. America 9.6 (10 studies) WHO 06.156
Note: All studies used International Headache Society criteria (or reasonable modifications of these criteria) for diagnosing migraine and were conducted
in general population or community-based adult samples of at least 500 participants. Numbers are estimated 1-year prevalences.
Source: (3).
Despite the widespread and incapacitating nature of headache, it is underestimated in scope and
scale, and headache disorders remain under-recognized and under-treated everywhere (1). Table
3.3.1 classifies headache disorders into primary, secondary, and neuralgias and other headaches,
with their symptoms (2).
The worldwide epidemiology of headache disorders is only partly documented. Population-
based studies have mostly focused on migraine (Figure 3.3.1) which, though the most frequently
studied, is not the most common headache disorder. Others, such as the more prevalent tension-
type headache and the more disabling so-called chronic daily headache syndromes, have received
less attention. Furthermore, few population-based studies exist for developing countries, where
limited funding and large and often rural (and therefore less accessible) populations, coupled
with the low profile of headache disorders compared with communicable diseases, prevent the
systematic collection of information.
Nevertheless, despite regional variations, headache disorders are thought to be highly preva-
lent throughout the world, and recent surveys add support to this belief. Sufficient studies have
been conducted to establish that headache disorders affect people of all ages, races, income
levels and geographical areas (Figure 3.3.2). Four of them — three primary headache disorders
and one secondary — have particular public health importance.
Figure 3.3.2 Population-based epidemiological

Population-based epidemiologicalstudies of headache
studies of headachedisorders
disordersa
(all headache disorders or unspecified headache)
77.0
63.0
37.7
87.3
76.0
71.0
49.4 55.6
13.4 46.0 28.5
59.7
29.0 68.0
62.0
35.9
78.8
23.1
28.7
63.1
37.3 20.0
Africa 21.6 (2 studies)
Asia 58.6 (5 studies)
Europe 56.1 (8 studies)
N. America 53.5 (3 studies)
Oceania 50.0 (1 study) 50.0
1 year prevalence % S. America 41.3 (4 studies) WHO 06.155
a
all headache disorders or unspecified headache.
Note: All studies were conducted in general population or community-based adult samples of at least 500 participants. Numbers are estimated
1-year prevalences.
Source: (3).
Table 3.3.1 Classification of headache disorders

Type Symptoms
Primary 1. Migraine
2. Tension-type headache
3. Cluster headache and other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias
4. Other primary headaches
Secondary 5. Headache attributed to head and/or neck trauma
6. Headache attributed to cranial or cervical vascular disorder
7. Headache attributed to non-vascular intracranial disorder
8. Headache attributed to a substance or its withdrawal
9. Headache attributed to infection
10. Headache attributed to disorder of homoeostasis
11. Headache or facial pain attributed to disorder of cranium, neck, eyes, ears, nose, sinuses,
teeth, mouth or other facial or cranial structures
12. Headache attributed to psychiatric disorder
Neuralgias and 13. Cranial neuralgias, central and primary facial pain and other headaches
other headaches 14. Other headache, cranial neuralgia, central or primary facial pain
Source: (1).
TYPES OF HEADACHE DISORDERS

Migraine
Migraine is a primary headache disorder. It almost certainly has a genetic basis (4), but environmental
factors play a significant role in how the disorder affects those who suffer from it. Pathophysiologi-
cally, activation of a mechanism deep in the brain causes release of pain-producing inflammatory
substances around the nerves and blood vessels of the head. Why this happens periodically, and
what brings the process to an end in spontaneous resolution of attacks, are uncertain.
Usually starting at puberty, migraine is recurrent throughout life in many cases. Adults with
migraine describe episodic disabling attacks in which headache and nausea are the most charac-
teristic features; others are vomiting and dislike or intolerance of normal levels of light and sound.
Headaches are typically moderate or severe in intensity, one-sided and pulsating, aggravated by
routine physical activity; they usually last from several hours to 2–3 days. In children, attacks
tend to be of shorter duration and abdominal symptoms more prominent. Attack frequency is
typically once or twice a month but can be anywhere between once a year and once a week, often
subject to lifestyle and environmental factors that suggest people with migraine react adversely
to change in routine.
Migraine is most disabling to people aged 35–45 years, but it can trouble much younger
people, including children. Studies in Europe and the United States have shown that migraine
affects 6–8% of men and 15–18% of women (5, 6). A similar pattern probably exists in Central
America: in Puerto Rico, for example, 6% of men and 17% of women were found to have migraine
(7 ). In South America, prevalences appear only slightly lower (8).
A recent survey in Turkey suggested even greater prevalence in that country: 9% in men and 29%
in women (9). Similarly, in India, although major studies are still to be conducted, anecdotal evidence
suggests migraine is very common. High temperatures and high light levels for more than eight months
of the year, heavy noise pollution and the Indian habits of omitting breakfast, fasting frequently and
eating rich, spicy and fermented food are thought to be common triggers (10). Migraine appears less
prevalent, but still common, elsewhere in Asia (around 8%) and in Africa (3–7% in community-based
studies) (3). In these areas also, major studies have yet to be carried out.
The higher rates in women everywhere (2–3 times those in men) are hormonally driven.
Tension-type headache
The mechanism of tension-type headache is poorly understood, though it has long been regarded
as a headache with muscular origins (11). It may be stress related or associated with musculo-
skeletal problems in the neck.
Tension-type headache has distinct subtypes. As experienced by very large numbers of people,
episodic tension-type headache occurs, like migraine, in attack-like episodes. These usually last
no more than a few hours but can persist for several days. Chronic tension-type headache, one
of the chronic daily headache syndromes, is less common than episodic tension-type headache
but is present most of the time: it can be unremitting over long periods. This variant is much more
disabling.
Headache in either case is usually mild or moderate and generalized, though it can be one-
sided. It is described as pressure or tightness, like a band around the head, sometimes spreading
into or from the neck. It lacks the specific features and associated symptoms of migraine.
Tension-type headache pursues a highly variable course, often beginning during the teenage
years and reaching peak levels around the age of 30–40 years. It affects three women to every
two men. Episodic tension-type headache is the most common headache disorder, reported by
over 70% of some populations (12), though its prevalence appears to vary greatly worldwide (3).
In Japan, for example, Takeshima et al. (13) found 22% of the population to be affected, while
Abduljabbar et al. (14) recorded only 3.1% with tension-type headache in a rural population of
Saudi Arabia (though it was still the most common headache type). Lack of reporting and under-
diagnosis were thought to be factors here, and it may be that cultural attitudes to reporting a
relatively minor complaint explain at least part of the variation elsewhere. Chronic tension-type
headache affects 1–3% of adults (3).
Cluster headache
Cluster headache is one of a group of primary headache disorders (trigeminal autonomic cepha-
lalgias) of uncertain mechanism that are characterized by frequently recurring, short-lasting but
extremely severe headache (1).
Cluster headache also has episodic and chronic forms. Episodic cluster headache occurs in
bouts (clusters), typically of 6–12 weeks’ duration once a year or two years and at the same time
of year. Strictly one-sided intense pain develops around the eye once or more daily, mostly at night.
Unable to stay in bed, the affected person agitatedly paces the room, even going outdoors, until
the pain diminishes after 30–60 minutes. The eye is red and watery, the nose runs or is blocked
on the affected side and the eyelid may droop. In the less common chronic cluster headache there
are no remissions between clusters. The episodic form can become chronic, and vice versa.
Though relatively uncommon, probably affecting no more than 3 per 1000 adults, cluster head-
ache is clearly highly recognizable. It is unusual among primary headache disorders in affecting six
men to each woman. Most people developing cluster headache are 20–30 years of age or older;
once present, the condition may persist intermittently for 40 years or more.
Medication-overuse headache
Chronic excessive use of medication to treat headache is the cause of medication-overuse head-
ache (15), another of the chronic daily headache syndromes.
Medication-overuse headache is oppressive, persistent and often at its worst on awakening
in the morning. A typical history begins with episodic headache — migraine or tension-type
headache. The condition is treated with an analgesic or other medication for each attack. Over
time, headache episodes become more frequent, as does medication intake. In the end-stage,
which not all patients reach, headache persists all day, fluctuating with medication use repeated
every few hours. This evolution occurs over a few weeks or much, much longer. A common and
probably key factor at some stage in the development of medication-overuse headache is a switch
to pre-emptive use of medication, in anticipation of the headache.
All medications for the acute or symptomatic treatment of headache, in overuse, are associ-
ated with this problem, but what constitutes overuse is not clear in individual cases. Suggested
limits are the regular intake of simple analgesics on 15 or more days per month or of codeine- or
barbiturate-containing combination analgesics, ergotamine or triptans on more than 10 days a
month (1). Frequency of use is important: even when the total quantities are similar, low daily
doses carry greater risk than larger weekly doses.
In terms of prevalence, medication-overuse headache far outweighs all other secondary
headaches (16). It affects more than 1% of some populations (17 ), women more than men, and
children also. In others for whom there are no published data, in Saudi Arabia for example, clini-
cal experience suggests this disorder is not uncommon, with a tendency to be more evident in
affluent communities.
Serious secondary headaches

Some headaches signal serious underlying disorders that may demand immediate intervention
(see Box 3.3.1). Although they are relatively uncommon, such headaches worry nonspecialists
because they are in the differential diagnosis of primary headache disorders. The reality is that
intracranial lesions give rise to histories and physical signs that should bring them to mind.
Over-diagnosed headaches
Headache should not be attributed to sinus disease in the absence of other symptoms indicative
of it. Many patients with headache visit an optician, but errors of refraction are overestimated as
a cause of headache. Dental problems may cause jaw or facial pain but rarely headache.

Taken together, headache disorders are extraordinarily common. In developed countries, tension-
type headache alone affects two thirds of adult males and over 80% of females (12). Extrapolation
from figures for migraine prevalence and attack incidence suggests that 3 000 migraine attacks
occur every day for each million of the general population (6). Less well recognized is the toll of
chronic daily headache: up to one adult in 20 has headache on more days than not (17, 18). Fur-
Box 3.3.1 Serious secondary headaches (headaches to worry about)
Intracranial tumours rarely produce headache until quite Primary angle-closure glaucoma, rare before middle
large, when raised intracranial pressure is apparent in the age, may present dramatically with acute ocular hyperten-
history and, in all likelihood, focal neurological signs are sion, a painful red eye with the pupil mid-dilated and fixed,
present. Because of the infrequency of intracranial tu- and, essentially, impaired vision. In other cases headache
mours, brain scanning is not justified as a routine investi- or eye pain may be episodic and mild.
gation in patients with headache (18). Idiopathic intracranial hypertension is a rare cause of
Meningitis, and its associated headache, occur in an obvi- headache not readily diagnosed on the history alone. Pap-
ously ill patient. The signs of fever and neck stiffness, later illoedema indicates the diagnosis in adults, but is not seen
accompanied by nausea and disturbed consciousness, re- invariably in children with the condition.
veal the cause. More commonly encountered in the tropics are the acute
The headache of subarachnoid haemorrhage, commonly infections, viral encephalitis, malaria and dengue haem-
but not always of sudden onset, is often described as the orrhagic fever, all of which can present with sudden se-
worst ever. Neck stiffness may take some hours to develop. vere headache with or without a neurological deficit. These
Unless there is a clear history of similar uncomplicated epi- infections need to be recognized wherever they are likely
sodes, these characteristics demand urgent investigation. to occur.
New headache in any patient over 50 years of age should Other disorders seen more in the tropics that may pres-
raise the suspicion of giant cell (temporal) arteritis. ent with subacute or chronic headache are tuberculosis,
Headache can be severe. The patient, who does not feel neurocysticercosis, neurosarcoidosis and HIV-related
entirely well, may complain of marked scalp tenderness. infections. These are often diagnosed only on imaging or
Jaw claudication is highly suggestive. by specific laboratory tests.
thermore, several (though not all) follow-up studies in developed countries suggest that headache
prevalence and burden are increasing (19).
No significant mortality is associated with headache disorders, which is one reason why they
are so poorly acknowledged. Nevertheless, among the recognizable burdens imposed on people
affected by headache disorders are pain and personal suffering, which may be substantial, im-
paired quality of life and financial cost. Above all, headache disorders are disabling: worldwide,
WHO ranks migraine alone at 19th among all causes of years of life lost to disability (YLDs) (20).
Collectively, all headache disorders probably account for double this burden (3), which would put
them among the top ten causes of disability. Repeated headache attacks, and often the constant
fear of the next, damage family life, social life and employment (21). For example, social activ-
ity and work capacity are reduced in almost all people with migraine and in 60% of those with
tension-type headache. Headache often results in the cancellation of social activities while, at
work, people who suffer frequent attacks are likely to be seen as unreliable — which they may
be — or unable to cope. This can reduce the likelihood of promotion and undermine career and
financial prospects.
While people actually affected by headache disorders bear much of their burden, they do not
carry it all: employers, fellow workers, family and friends may be required to take on work and
duties abandoned by headache sufferers. Because headache disorders are most troublesome in
the productive years (late teens to 60 years of age), estimates of their financial cost to society
are massive — principally from lost working hours and reduced productivity because of impaired
working effectiveness (22). In the United Kingdom, for example, some 25 million working or school
days are lost every year because of migraine alone (6). Tension-type headache, less disabling
but more common, and chronic daily headache, less common but more disabling, together cause
losses that are almost certainly of similar magnitude.
Therefore, while headache rarely signals serious underlying illness, its public health importance
lies in its causal association with these personal and societal burdens of pain, disability, damaged
quality of life and financial cost. Not surprisingly, headache is high among causes of consulting
both general practitioners and neurologists (23, 24). One in six patients aged 16–65 years in a
large general practice in the United Kingdom consulted at least once because of headache over
an observed period of five years, and almost 10% of them were referred to secondary care (25). A
survey of neurologists found that up to a third of all their patients consulted because of headache
— more than for any other single complaint (26).
Far less is known about the public health aspects of headache disorders in developing and
resource-poor countries. Indirect financial costs to society may not be so dominant where labour
costs are lower but the consequences to individuals of being unable to work or to care for children
may be severe. There is no reason to believe that the burden of headache in its personal elements
weighs any less heavily where resources are limited, or where other diseases are also prevalent.
BARRIERS TO CARE
Headache ought to be a public health concern, yet there is good evidence that very large numbers
of people troubled, even disabled, by headache do not receive effective health care (2). For ex-
ample, in representative samples of the general populations of the United States and the United
Kingdom, only half the people identified with migraine had seen a doctor for headache-related
reasons in the last 12 months and only two thirds had been correctly diagnosed (27 ). Most were
solely reliant on over-the-counter medications, without access to prescription drugs. In a separate
general-population questionnaire survey in the United Kingdom, two thirds of respondents with
migraine were searching for better treatment than their current medication (28). In Japan, aware-
ness of migraine and rates of consultation by those with migraine are noticeably lower (29). Over
80% of Danish tension-type headache sufferers had never consulted a doctor for headache (30).
It is highly unlikely that people with headache fare any better in developing countries.
The barriers responsible for this lack of care doubtless vary throughout the world, but they may
be classified as clinical, social, or political and economic.
Clinical barriers
Lack of knowledge among health-care providers is the principal clinical barrier to effective head-
ache management. This problem begins in medical schools where there is limited teaching on the
subject, a consequence of the low priority accorded to it. It is likely to be even more pronounced
in countries with fewer resources and, as a result, more limited access generally to doctors and
effective treatments.
Social barriers
Poor awareness of headache extends similarly to the general public. Headache disorders are not
perceived by the public as serious since they are mostly episodic, do not cause death and are not
contagious. In fact, headaches are often trivialized as “normal”, a minor annoyance or an excuse to
avoid responsibility. These important social barriers inhibit people who might otherwise seek help
from doctors, despite what may be high levels of pain and disability. Surprisingly, poor awareness
of headache disorders exists among people who are directly affected by them. A Japanese study
found, for example, that many patients were unaware that their headaches were migraine, or that
this was a specific illness requiring medical care (31). The low consultation rates in developed
countries may indicate that many headache sufferers are unaware that effective treatments exist.
Again, the situation is unlikely to be better where resources are more limited.
Political and economic barriers

Many governments, seeking to constrain health-care costs, do not acknowledge the substantial
burden of headache on society. They fail to recognize that the direct costs of treating headache are
small in comparison with the huge indirect cost savings that might be made (for example by reduc-
ing lost working days) if resources were allocated to treat headache disorders appropriately.
MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION

Successful management of headache disorders follows five essential steps:
■ the sufferer must seek medical treatment;
■ a correct diagnosis should be made;
■ the treatment offered must be appropriate to the diagnosis;
■ the treatment should be taken as directed;
■ the patient should be followed up to assess the outcome of treatment, which should be changed
if necessary.
Therefore the key to successful health care for headache is education (31), which first should
create awareness that headache disorders are a medical problem requiring treatment. Education
of health-care providers should encompass both the elements of good management (see Box
3.3.2) and the avoidance of mismanagement.
Diagnosis
Committing sufficient time to taking a systematic history of a patient presenting with headache
is the key to getting the diagnosis right. The history-taking must highlight or elicit description of
the characteristic features of the important headache disorders described above. The correct
diagnosis is not always evident initially, especially when more than one headache disorder is
present, but the history should awaken suspicion of the important secondary headaches. Once it
is established that there is no serious secondary headache, a diary kept for a few weeks to record
the pattern of attacks, symptoms and medication use will usually clarify the diagnosis. Physical
examination rarely reveals unexpected signs after an adequately taken history, but should include
blood pressure measurement and a brief but comprehensive neurological examination including
the optic fundi; more is not required unless the history is suggestive. Examination of the head and
neck may find muscle tenderness, limited range of movement or crepitation, which suggest a need
for physical forms of treatment but do not necessarily elucidate headache causation.
Investigations, including neuroimaging, rarely contribute to the diagnosis of headache when
the history and examination have not suggested an underlying cause.
Realistic objectives
There are few patients troubled by headache whose lives cannot be improved by the right medical
intervention with the objective of minimizing impairment of life and lifestyle (32). Cure is rarely
a realistic aim in primary headache disorders, but people disabled by headache should not have
unduly low expectations of what is achievable through optimum management.
Medication-overuse headache and other secondary headaches are, at least in theory, resolved
through treatment of the underlying cause.
Predisposing and trigger factors

Migraine, in particular, is said to be subject to certain physiological and external environmental
factors. While predisposing factors increase susceptibility to attacks, trigger factors may initiate
them. The two may combine. Attempts to control migraine by managing either are often disap-
pointing. A few predisposing factors (stress, depression, anxiety, menopause, and head or neck
trauma) are well recognized but not always avoidable or treatable. Trigger factors are important
and their influence is real in some patients, but generally less so than is commonly supposed.
Dietary triggers are rarely the cause of attacks: lack of food is a more prominent trigger. Many
attacks have no obvious trigger and, again, those that are identified are not always avoidable.
Diaries may be useful in detecting triggers but the process is complicated as triggers appear to
be cumulative, jointly overflowing the “threshold” above which attacks are initiated. Too much
effort in seeking triggers causes introspection and can be counter-productive. Enforced lifestyle
change to avoid triggers can itself adversely affect quality of life.
In tension-type headache, stress may be obvious and likely to be etiologically implicated.
Musculoskeletal involvement may be evident in the history or on examination. Sometimes, neither
of these factors is apparent. An interesting variation in the Muslim world is the marked rise,
observed in people ordinarily susceptible to headache, in tension-type headache incidence on the
first day of fasting (33).
Box 3.3.2 Seven elements of good headache management
1 Evident interest and investment of time to inform, explain, reassure and educate
2 Correct and timely diagnosis
3 Agreed high but realistic objectives
4 Identification of predisposing and/or trigger factors and their avoidance through appropriate lifestyle
modifications
5 Intervention (optimal management of most primary headaches combines adequate but not excessive use of ef-
fective and cost-effective pharmaceutical remedies with non-pharmacological approaches; secondary headaches
generally require treatment of the underlying cause)
6 Follow-up to ensure optimum treatment has been established
7 Referral to specialist care when these measures fail
Cluster headache is usually but not always a disease of smokers, many of them heavy consum-
ers of tobacco. However, patients with cluster headache who still smoke cannot be promised that
giving up will end or even improve their headaches. Alcohol potently triggers cluster headache
and most patients have learnt to avoid it during cluster periods.
THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS
The purpose of pharmacotherapy of primary headache, once non-drug measures have been fully
exploited, is to control symptoms so that the impact of the disorder on each individual patient’s life
and lifestyle is minimized. This requires a therapeutic plan tailored for each patient, and patients with
two or more coexisting headache disorders are likely to require separate plans for each disorder.
Migraine
Most people with migraine require drugs for the acute attack. These may be symptomatic or spe-
cific. The desirable goal of acute therapy with drugs currently available — resolution of symptoms
and full return of function within two hours — is not attainable by all. When symptom control
with best acute therapy is inadequate, it can be supplemented with prophylactic medication (34),
usually for 4–6 months, aiming to reduce the number of attacks.
General population surveys indicate that large numbers of people with migraine manage
themselves, with no more than symptomatic over-the-counter remedies (27 ). For many this ap-
pears adequate. Simple oral analgesia — acetylsalicylic acid or ibuprofen — is used to best
advantage in soluble formulations taken early because gastric stasis develops as the migraine
attack progresses and this impedes absorption. A prokinetic antiemetic — metoclopramide or
domperidone — enhances the analgesic effect by promoting gastric emptying and is most suit-
able for nausea and vomiting. When oral symptomatic therapy fails, it is logical to bypass the gut
using a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug such as diclofenac, with or without domperidone,
given as rectal suppositories (35).
Specific drugs — triptans and, in certain circumstances, ergotamine tartrate — should not
be withheld from those who need them. There are specific contraindications to these drugs,
particularly coronary disease (and multiple risk factors thereof) and uncontrolled hypertension,
but triptans as a class show higher efficacy rates than symptomatic treatments. Population-based
needs assessments suggest many more people with migraine should receive triptans than cur-
rently do. Cost has much to do with this, and this constraint must be more evident in resource-
poor countries where triptans are unlikely to be available. Denial of the best treatment available
is difficult to justify for patients generally, however, and therefore for individuals: unnecessary
pain and disability are the result. In addition, increasingly it is being demonstrated in developed
countries that under-treatment of migraine is not cost effective: the time lost by sufferers and
their carers is expensive, as are repeated consultations in the search for better therapy. On this
basis some specialists believe that disability assessment should be the means to select patients
to receive triptans. Where disability is the basis of choice, however, it should be noted that over
80% of people with migraine report disability because of it (36).
Which triptan to choose is an individual matter because different patients respond differently
to them: one may work where another does not. In countries where more than one is available,
patients may reasonably try each in turn to discover which suits them best. Relapse (return of
headache within 6–48 hours) in 20–50% of patients who have initially responded is a troublesome
limitation of triptans. A second dose is usually effective for relapse but, occasionally in some pa-
tients and often in a few, induces further relapse. This problem may underlie medication-overuse
headache attributable to triptan overuse (37 ).
Drugs in a range of pharmacological classes have limited but often useful prophylactic efficacy
against migraine through mechanisms that are presumably not identical but are unclear. The choice
of agent is guided by comorbidities and contraindications. Because poor compliance is a major

factor impairing effectiveness, drugs given once daily are preferable, all else being equal. Beta-
blockers without partial agonism (such as atenolol, metoprolol, and propranolol in a long-acting
formulation) are likely to be first-line prophylactics in many countries. Cardioselectivity and hydro-
philicity do not affect efficacy but both improve the side-effect profile, so atenolol may be preferred.
Certain antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), notably divalproex or sodium valproate and topiramate, have
good evidence of efficacy. Amitriptyline is useful especially when migraine and tension-type head-
ache occur together. Relatively low doses are often sufficient. Among calcium channel blockers,
only flunarizine has efficacy. Methysergide, a synthetic ergot alkaloid, is effective but recommended
for use only under specialist supervision, and not for more than six months continuously.
In some women, hormonal influences are important in driving attack frequency, and a special
approach may be taken to menstruation-related migraine (38).
Tension-type headache
Reassurance and over-the-counter analgesics (acetylsalicylic acid or ibuprofen rather than
paracetamol) (39) are sufficient for infrequent episodic tension-type headache. Most people with
this condition manage themselves: episodic tension-type headache is self-limiting and, though it
may be temporarily disabling, it rarely raises anxieties. If medication usage is on fewer than two
days per week there is little risk of escalating consumption.
People consult doctors because of episodic tension-type headache when it is becoming fre-
quent and, in all likelihood, is no longer responding to painkillers. Long-term remission is then the
objective of management, as it is for chronic tension-type headache. Symptomatic medication is
contraindicated for tension-type headache occurring on more than two days per week: where it is
already being taken at high frequency a diagnosis of chronic tension-type headache rather than
medication-overuse headache cannot be made with confidence. Whichever condition is present
(and it can be both), frequently taken symptomatic medication must be withdrawn as the first step
(see below).
Physiotherapy is the treatment of choice for musculoskeletal symptoms accompanying fre-
quent episodic or chronic tension-type headache. In stress-related illness, lifestyle changes to
reduce stress, and relaxation and/or cognitive therapy to develop stress-coping strategies, are
the treatment mainstays. Prophylactic medication has a limited role. Amitriptyline is first-line
in most cases, withdrawn after improvement has been maintained for 4–6 months. Long-term
remission is not always achievable, especially in long-standing chronic tension-type headache. A
pain management clinic may be the final option.
Cluster headache
Because of its relative rarity, cluster headache has a tendency to be misdiagnosed, sometimes
for years. It is the one primary headache that may not be best managed in primary care, but the
primary care physician has an important role not only in recognizing it at once but also in discour-
aging inappropriate “treatments” (tooth extraction is not infrequent).
Medication-overuse headache
Prevention is the ideal management of medication-overuse headache, which means avoidance of
acute medication for headache on more than 2–3 days per week on a regular basis. Education is
the key factor: many patients with medication-overuse headache are unaware of it as a medical
condition (40). Once this disorder has developed, early intervention is important since the long-
term prognosis depends on the duration of medication overuse (41).
Treatment is withdrawal of the suspected medication(s). Although this will lead initially to
worsening headache and sometimes nausea, vomiting and sleep disturbances, with forewarning
and explanation it is probably most successful when done abruptly (42).
Serious secondary headaches

All the serious secondary headaches described above require specialist referral. In most cases,
this should be immediate or urgent.
FOLLOW-UP AND REFERRAL

Neither the first diagnosis, nor the first proposed treatment plan, may be correct. Follow-up
is essential, at intervals balanced on the one hand to allow time for treatment interventions to
achieve observable effect and on the other to meet patients’ natural desires for a quick solution
to a painful and often debilitating problem.
For migraine and episodic tension-type headache, attack frequency is likely to be the principal
determinant. For chronic tension-type headache, follow-up provides the psychological support
that is often needed while recovery is slow.
In medication-overuse headache, early review is essential once withdrawal from medication
has begun, in order to check that it is being achieved: nothing is less helpful than discovering, three
months later, that the patient ran into difficulties and gave up the attempt. During later follow-up,
the underlying primary headache condition is likely to re-emerge and require re-evaluation and a
new therapeutic plan. Most patients with medication-overuse headache require extended support:
the relapse rate is around 40% within five years (41).
Urgent referral for specialist management is recommended at each onset of cluster headache.
Weekly review is unlikely to be too frequent and allows dosage incrementation of potentially toxic
drugs to be as rapid as possible. Patients commencing lithium therapy, or changing their dose,
need levels checked within one week.
In all other cases, specialist referral is appropriate when the diagnosis remains (or becomes)
unclear or these standard management options fail.
HEALTH-CARE POLICY
The volume of headache referrals to neurologists seen in developed countries is difficult to justify,
and should not be repeated in countries where headache-related health services are being devel-
oped. The common headache disorders require no special investigation and they are diagnosed
and managed with skills that should be generally available to physicians. Management of headache
disorders therefore belongs in primary care for all but a very small minority of patients. Models of
health care vary but, in most countries, primary care has an acknowledged and important role.
It is a role founded on recognition that decisions in primary care take account of patient-related
factors — family medical history and patients’ individual expectations and values — of which the
continuity and long-term relationships of primary care generate awareness (43) while promoting
trust and satisfaction among patients (44).
Even in primary care, however, the needs of the headache patient are not met in the time usu-
ally allocated to a physician consultation in many health systems. Nurses and pharmacists can
complement the delivery of health care.
■ The evident burden of headache disorders on individuals and on society is sufficient to justify
a strategic change in the approach to headache management (31, 45). In order to implement
beneficial change, public health policy in all countries must embrace the following elements.
■ The prevalence of the common headache disorders in each region of the world needs to be
known, through further epidemiological research where necessary, in order to gain a complete
picture of headache disorders and their clinical, social and economic implications locally.
■ This information, as it is accumulated, should be employed to combat stigma and increase
public awareness of headache as a real and substantial health problem.
■ Education, as the key to effective headache management, needs improving at all levels. In
the case of the medical profession, this should begin in medical schools by giving headache
disorders a place in the undergraduate curriculum that matches their clinical importance as
one of the most common causes of consultation. Nowhere is this the case at present.
■ The health economics of headache disorders and their effective treatment generally support
investment of health-care resources in headache management programmes, set up in collabo-
ration with key stakeholders to create services appropriate to local systems and local needs.
Their outcomes should be evaluated in terms of measurable reductions in population burden
attributable to headache disorders.
PARTNERSHIPS WITHIN AND BEYOND THE HEALTH SYSTEM

The elements listed above form the framework of WHO’s Global Campaign to Reduce the Burden
of Headache Worldwide (45). Launched in March 2004, this campaign — known as “Lifting
the Burden” — is a formal partnership between WHO and the international nongovernmental
organizations for headache: the lay World Headache Alliance and the professional International
Headache Society and European Headache Federation. The objectives of Lifting the Burden are,
region by region throughout the world, to:
■ measure the burden of headache disorders;
■ raise awareness of headache disorders among local health policy-makers;
■ work with people and agencies locally to plan locally appropriate health-care solutions;
■ put these solutions in place, providing clinical management supports;
■ test them, and modify and re-test if necessary, for optimal beneficial change.
Aside from this partnership, lay and professional groups in countries around the world play im-
portant, though often less formal, roles in education and in sharing information and experience.
RESEARCH
Five research fronts are currently important in the field of headache medicine.
■ Basic research concentrates on elucidating disease mechanisms, particularly those that re-
spond to environmental influences and those with a genetic basis. The findings will guide the
development of new treatments.
■ Pharmaceutical research and clinical trials support the translation of new discoveries into
better treatments for people with headache disorders.
■ Epidemiological research will establish the scope and scale of headache-related burden of ill-
ness around the world. The results will guide appropriate allocation of health-care resources by
policy-makers. Epidemiological studies may also identify preventable risk factors for headache
disorders.
■ Health services research, backed by health economics studies, may show that the reallocation
of resources towards improving health-care delivery offers greater benefits for people with
headache disorders — by more effectively using treatments already available — than the
search for new pharmacological interventions. This is particularly so given the prevalence of
medication misuse (both underuse and overuse). Community intervention studies may lead to
better prevention of headache disorders.
■ Outcomes research is needed to guide optimal health care and its delivery through organized
health services.
The importance of patient and public involvement in defining research objectives should be
emphasized: lay people have experience and skills that complement those of researchers.

1 Headache disorders are common and ubiquitous. They have a neurological basis,
but headache rarely signals serious underlying illness. The huge public health
importance of headache disorders arises from their causal association with
personal and societal burdens of pain, disability, damaged quality of life and
financial cost.
2 Headache disorders have many types and subtypes, but a very small number of
them impose almost all of these burdens. They are diagnosed clinically, requiring
no special investigations in most of the cases.
3 Although headache disorders can be treated effectively, globally they are not,
because health-care systems fail to make treatment available.
4 Management of headache disorders everywhere in the world has low priority,
which abjectly fails to match headache-related health-care provision and delivery
to people’s needs.
5 Effective management of headache disorders can be provided in primary care for
all but a very small minority of patients. Nurses and pharmacists can complement
the delivery of health care by primary care physicians.
6 Good management, at whatever level, requires education of doctors and of people
affected by headache disorders. Mismanagement, and overuse of medications to
treat acute headache, are major risk factors for disease aggravation.
7 Every government should acknowledge the humanitarian arguments for effective
health care for headache disorders.
8 Every government should be aware of the financial cost to the country of
headache disorders in its population. Cost-of-illness studies will create
awareness of the potential savings that better health care for headache disorders
may achieve through mitigated productivity losses.
9 Partnerships between health policy-makers, health-care providers and people
affected by headache disorders and their advocacy groups may be the best
vehicle for determining, and bringing about, the changes that people with
headache need.
REFERENCES
1. American Association for the Study of Headache and International Headache Society. Consensus statement
on improving migraine management. Headache, 1998, 38:736.
2. Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society. The international
classification of headache disorders, 2nd ed. Cephalalgia, 2004, 24(Suppl. 1):1–160.
3. Stovner LJ et al. The global burden of headache: a documentation of headache prevalence and disability
worldwide. Cephalalgia (accepted for publication).
4. Ferrari MD. Migraine. Lancet, 1998, 351:1043–1051.
5. Scher AI, Stewart WF, Lipton RB. Migraine and headache: a meta-analytic approach. In: Crombie IK, ed.
Epidemiology of pain. Seattle, WA, IASP Press, 1999:159–170.
6. Steiner TJ et al. The prevalence and disability burden of adult migraine in England and their relationships to
age, gender and ethnicity. Cephalalgia, 2003, 23:519–527.
7. Miranda H et al. Prevalence of headache in Puerto Rico. Headache, 2003, 43:774–778.
8. Morillo LE et al. Prevalence of migraine in Latin America. Headache, 2005, 45:106–117.
9. Celik Y et al. Migraine prevalence and some related factors in Turkey. Headache, 2005, 45:32–36.
10. Ravishankar K. Barriers to headache care in India and efforts to improve the situation. Lancet Neurology,
2004, 3:564–567.
11. Kellgren JH. Observations on referred pain arising from muscle. Clinical Science, 1938,
3:175–190.
12. Rasmussen BK. Epidemiology of headache. Cephalalgia, 1995, 15:45–68.
13. Takeshima T et al. Population-based door-to-door survey of migraine in Japan: the Daisen study. Headache,
2004, 44:8–19.
14. Abduljabbar M et al. Prevalence of primary headache syndrome in adults in the Qassim region of Saudi
Arabia. Headache, 1996, 36:385–388.
15. Diener H-C et al. Analgesic-induced chronic headache: long-term results of withdrawal therapy. Journal of
Neurology, 1989, 236:9–14.
16. Srikiatkhachorn A, Phanthurachinda K. Prevalence and clinical features of chronic daily headache in a
headache clinic. Headache, 1997, 37:277–280.
17. Castillo J et al. Epidemiology of chronic daily headache in the general population. Headache, 1999,
39:190–196.
18. Frishberg BM et al. Evidence-based guidelines in the primary care setting: neuroimaging in patients with
nonacute headache. Saint Paul, MN, American Academy of Neurology, 2001
(http://www.aan.com/professionals/practice/pdfs/gl0088.pdf).
19. Scher AI et al. Prevalence of frequent headache in a population sample. Headache, 1998, 38:497–506.
20. Stovner LJ, Hagen K. Prevalence, burden and cost of headache disorders. Current Opinion in Neurology,
2006, 19:281–285.
21. The world health report 2001 – Mental health: new understanding, new hope. Geneva, World Health
22. Lipton RB et al. The family impact of migraine: population-based studies in the US and UK. Cephalalgia,
2003, 23:429–440.
23. Schwartz BS, Stewart WF, Lipton RB. Lost workdays and decreased work effectiveness associated with
headache in the workplace. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 1997, 39:320–327.
24. Hopkins A, Menken M, De Friese GA. A record of patient encounters in neurological practice in the United
Kingdom. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 1989, 52:436–438.
25. Wiles CM, Lindsay M. General practice referrals to a department of neurology. Journal of the Royal College of
Physicians, 1996, 30:426–431.
26. Laughey WF et al. Headache consultation and referral patterns in one UK general practice. Cephalalgia,
1999, 19:328–329.
27. Hopkins A. Neurological services and the neurological health of the population in the United Kingdom.
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 1997, 63(Suppl. 1):S53–S59.
28. Lipton RB et al. Patterns of health care utilization for migraine in England and in the United States.
Neurology, 2003, 60:441–448.
29. Dowson A, Jagger S. The UK Migraine Patient Survey: quality of life and treatment. Current Medical Research
and Opinion, 1999, 15:241–253.
30. Rasmussen BK, Jensen R, Olesen J. Impact of headache on sickness absence and utilisation of medical
services: a Danish population study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1992, 46:443–446.
31. Headache disorders and public health: education and management implications. Geneva, World Health
Organization, 2000.
32. Steiner TJ, Fontebasso M. Headache. BMJ, 2002, 325:881–886.
33. Awada A, al Jumah M. The first-of-Ramadan headache. Headache, 1999, 39:490–493.

34. Ramadan NM, Schultz LL, Gilkey SJ. Migraine prophylactic drugs: proof of efficacy, utilization and cost.
Cephalalgia, 1997, 17:73–80.
35. Guidelines for all doctors in the diagnosis and management of migraine and tension-type headache. London,
British Association for the Study of Headache, 2004 (http://www.bash.org.uk).
36. Lipton RB et al. Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: data from the American Migraine
Study II. Headache, 2001, 41:646–657.
37. Limmroth V et al. Headache after frequent use of serotonin agonists zolmitriptan and naratriptan. Lancet,
1999, 353:378.
38. MacGregor EA. Menstruation, sex hormones and headache. Neurology Clinics, 1997, 15:125–141.
39. Steiner TJ, Lange R, Voelker M. Aspirin in episodic tension-type headache: placebo-controlled dose-ranging
comparison with paracetamol. Cephalalgia, 2003, 23:59–66.
40. Duarte RA, Thornton DR. Short-acting analgesics may aggravate chronic headache pain. American Family
Physician, 1995, 51: 203.
41. Schnider P et al. Long-term outcome of patients with headache and drug abuse after inpatient withdrawal:
five-year follow-up. Cephalalgia, 1996, 16:481–485.
42. Hering R, Steiner TJ. Abrupt outpatient withdrawal of medication in analgesic-abusing migraineurs. Lancet,
1991, 337:1442–1443.
43. Van Weel C. Primary care: political favourite or scientific discipline? Lancet, 1996, 348:1431–1432.
44. Mainous AG et al. Continuity of care and trust in one’s physician: evidence from primary care in the United
States and the United Kingdom. Family Medicine, 2001, 33:22–27.
45. Steiner TJ. Lifting the burden: the global campaign against headache. Lancet Neurology, 2004, 3:204–205.
RECOMMENDED READING
■ American Association for the Study of Headache and International Headache Society. Consensus statement
on improving migraine management. Headache, 1998, 38: 736.
■ Frishberg BM et al. Evidence-based guidelines in the primary care setting: neuroimaging in patients with
nonacute headache. Saint Paul, MN, American Academy of Neurology, 2001
(http://www.aan.com/professionals/practice/pdfs/gl0088.pdf).
■ Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society. The international classifica-
tion of headache disorders, 2nd ed. Cephalalgia, 2004, 24(Suppl. 1):1–160.
■ Lipton RB et al. The family impact of migraine: population-based studies in the US and UK. Cephalalgia,
2003, 23:429–440.
■ Olesen J et al., eds. The headaches, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2006.
■ Schwartz BS, Stewart WF, Lipton RB. Lost workdays and decreased work effectiveness associated with
headache in the workplace. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 1997, 39:320–327.
■ Steiner TJ. Lifting the burden: the global campaign against headache. Lancet Neurology, 2004, 3:204–205.
■ Steiner TJ, Fontebasso M. Headache. BMJ, 2002, 325:881–886.
■ Steiner TJ et al. The prevalence and disability burden of adult migraine in England and their relationships to
age, gender and ethnicity. Cephalalgia, 2003, 23:519–527.
■ Guidelines for all doctors in the diagnosis and management of migraine and tension-type headache. London,
British Association for the Study of Headache, 2004 (http://www.bash.org.uk).
■ Headache disorders and public health: education and management implications. Geneva, World Health
Organization, 2000.
■ The world health report 2001 – Mental health: new understanding, new hope. Geneva, World Health
3.4 Multiple sclerosis

85 Diagnosis and classification
89 Impact
90 Prevention and treatment
Multiple sclerosis affects around 2.5 million people worldwide:
it is one of the most common neurological disorders and cause
92 Research
of disability of young adults, especially in Europe and North
93 Training America. There is a lack of epidemiological studies from Asia
93 Conclusions and recommendations where the prevalence is reported to be low, though, with the
availability of more neurologists and magnetic resonance imag-
ing, a larger number of patients are being diagnosed. Although some people experience little
disability during their lifetime, up to 60% are no longer fully ambulatory 20 years after onset,
with significant implications for their quality of life and the financial cost to society.
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory demyelinating condition of the central nervous system
(CNS) that is generally considered to be autoimmune in nature. In people with MS, the immune
trigger is unknown, but the targets are myelinated CNS tracts. In regions of inflammation, break-
down of the blood–brain barrier occurs and destruction of myelin ensues, with axonal damage,
gliosis and the formation of sclerotic plaques.
Plaques (MS lesions) may form in the CNS white matter in any location (and also in grey mat-
ter); thus, clinical presentations may be diverse. Continuing lesion formation in MS often leads to
physical disability and, not infrequently, to cognitive decline.
DIAGNOSIS AND CLASSIFICATION

As the above definition suggests, MS can lead to a wide variety of symptoms, affecting different
parts of the body and with varying severity. Diagnosis of MS has always been clinically based,
but many tests — notably magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and more specific diagnostic cri-
teria — are now available to assist the clinician. MRI, the examination of the cerebrospinal fluid
(CSF) and visual evoked potentials are helpful in confirming the clinical suspicion of MS. In Asia,
where the prevalence is reported to be low (1–5 per 100 000), the clinical presentation may be
similar to that seen in Europe and North America, with manifestations suggesting cerebral, brain-
stem, cerebellar, optic nerve and spinal cord involvement (western type of MS) or may present
with more restricted recurrent optic nerve and spinal cord involvement (opticospinal form or the
Asian variant). The reason for this variation is not known.
Typically, the clinician takes a detailed neurological history and carries out a neurological ex-
amination to assess how the nervous system has been affected. To establish the diagnosis of MS,
a neurologist must demonstrate that involvement of the CNS is disseminated in time and space
and exclude any other diagnostic possibility. Defined criteria are used to conclude whether the
features fulfil the clinical diagnosis and allow for more precision, thus lessening the likelihood of
an incorrect diagnosis. Currently, the most widely accepted guidelines to the diagnosis of MS are
the “McDonald criteria” (1). These criteria incorporate MRI to provide evidence of dissemination in
time and space and enable the clinician to make an early diagnosis of MS. They also facilitate the
diagnosis of MS after a first attack (a clinically isolated syndrome) and in disease with insidious
progression (the primary progressive form of MS), see below.
While these criteria have proved to be useful in a typical adult Caucasian population of western
European ethnic origin, their validity remains to be proven in other regions such as Asia where
some studies still use Poser’s criteria. As the experience with MRI in MS builds up, it is expected
that the McDonald criteria with minor modifications will become applicable worldwide. It is always
essential that other conditions mimicking MS (such as vascular disorders, Sjogren’s disease and
sarcoid) are excluded.
COURSE AND OUTCOME

Just as the symptoms of MS are varied, so too is the course of the disease. Although some people
with MS experience little disability during their lifetime, up to 60% are no longer fully ambulatory
20 years after onset. In rare cases MS is so malignantly progressive it is terminal, but most people
with MS have a normal or near-normal life expectancy.
Typical patterns of progression, illustrated in Figure 3.4.1, are explained below.
■ Relapsing/remitting MS. Approximately 80% of patients will initially present this form of
MS, in which there are unpredictable attacks (relapses) during which new symptoms appear
or existing symptoms become more severe. The relapses can last for varying periods (days
or months) and there is partial or total recovery (remission). The disease may appear to be
clinically inactive for months or years, though MRI studies show that asymptomatic inflam-
matory activity is usually more frequent. Over time, however, symptoms may become more
severe with less complete recovery of function after each attack, possibly because of gliosis
and axonal loss in repeatedly affected plaques. People with MS may then enter a progressive
phase, characterized by a step-like downhill course.
Figure 3.4.1 Patterns of progression of multiple sclerosis

Disability
Disability
Time Time
Relapsing/remitting MS (2 typical courses) Secondary progressive MS (2 typical courses)
Disability
Time
Source (2). Primary progressive MS (2 typical courses)
■ Secondary progressive MS is characterized by progression that is not relapse related. Ap-

proximately 50% of patients with relapsing/remitting MS will develop secondary progressive MS
within 10 years, and 80% will have developed this form of MS within 20 years of disease onset.
■ Primary progressive MS, which affects around 10–15% of all MS patients, is characterized by
a lack of distinct attacks, but with slow onset and then steadily worsening symptoms. There is an
accumulation of deficits and disability which may level off at some point or continue over years.
■ Benign MS. A diagnosis of benign MS is retrospective, when the accumulated disability from
relapsing/remitting MS is either mild or non-existent after a long period (usually considered
to be 15–20 years). Given that follow-up studies show that most patients of this type will
eventually enter a disabling secondary progressive phase, the term “benign” is somewhat
misleading.
Prognostic factor
Although MS is an unpredictable condition, some studies have suggested that onset with sensory
symptoms or optic neuritis may have a better outlook. It has also been shown that multisite
presentations and poor recovery from an initial episode may indicate a worse outcome. Studies
that have observed a difference by sex usually indicate that males experience a more severe
course than females.

The incidence and prevalence of MS have been studied extensively (3). Some features of the
disease are generally accepted and are discussed further in this section.
■ The frequency of MS varies by geographical region throughout the world, apparently increasing
with distance from the equator in both hemispheres.
■ The disease is more common among women than men.
■ Peak onset is at around 30 years of age.
■ The disease is less common among non-white individuals than whites.
Etiology and risk factors

The distributions of MS by geography, sex, age, and race or ethnicity have all been explored for
clues to etiology. Most early research focused on the possible role of an environmental factor that
varied with latitude. To date no such risk factor for the disease has been unequivocally identified,
though researchers continue to believe that one exists. There is substantial evidence of a genetic
predisposition to the disease based on familial aggregation, and some debate over whether genet-
ics or exposure to an environmental trigger primarily accounts for its geographical distribution.
Relatively little is known about factors that predict the course of MS.
The worldwide distribution of MS can be only an indirect reflection of its cause, implicating
some environmental factor that varies with latitude, and can be interpreted in at least three differ-
ent ways in the search for clues to a specific etiology. First, an environmental risk factor may be
more common in temperate than tropical climates. Second, such a factor may be more common
in tropical climates, where it is acquired at an earlier age and consequently has less impact.
Third, this factor may be equally common in all regions, but the chance of its acquisition or of the
manifestation of symptoms is either increased by some enhancing factor present in temperate
climates or reduced by a protective factor present in tropical areas.
Among those factors that have been most closely scrutinized are:
■ infections, including a number of viral infections such as measles and Epstein–Barr virus;
■ climate and solar conditions;
■ living conditions;
■ diet and trace elements.
It is now generally accepted that the etiology of MS involves some interplay of genetic and
environmental factors. Evidence of racial or ethnic resistance, the increased risk among MS family
members, and elevated monozygotic twin concordance rate all favour a genetic contribution to
acquisition of the disease. The studies from which this evidence is derived, however, also indicate
that heredity cannot entirely explain the occurrence of MS. This is underlined by the fact that no
population-based study of monozygotic twins has found a concordance rate in excess of 30%.
Some environmental factor, such as a virus or toxin, must still play a role.
Global and regional distribution

The fact that there is an uneven geographical distribution of MS has been known since early in the
20th century. The prevalence of MS has been shown to vary with latitude, with rates broadly rising
as distance from the equator increases, in both the northern and southern hemispheres. While
there is some truth to this, it belies the complex interaction of geography, genes and environment
that larger scale epidemiological studies have uncovered.
As a recent meta-analysis of the epidemiology of MS put it “The updated distribution of MS
[in Europe], showing many exceptions to the previously described north-south gradient, requires
more explanation than simply a prevalence-latitude relationship. Prevalence data imply that racial
and ethnic differences are important in influencing the worldwide distribution of MS and that its
geography must be interpreted in terms of the probable discontinuous distribution of genetic
susceptibility alleles, which can however be modified by environment. Because the environmental
and genetic determinants of geographic gradients are by no means mutually exclusive, the race
versus place controversy is, to some extent, a useless and sterile debate” (4).
There is substantial literature on the relationship between migration and the prevalence and
incidence of MS. Studies both between and within countries invariably show that immigrants mov-
ing from high-risk to low-risk areas have a higher rate than that in their new homeland, but often
somewhat lower than that in their place of origin. (Note that if this observation were based only
on prevalence data, it might simply reflect the fact that sick and disabled people are less likely to
move, rather than less frequent exposure to a risk factor or more frequent exposure to a protective
factor in the new place of residence. However, data for the United States are based primarily on
incidence and document the same decline in risk as found in prevalence studies.)
There are fewer studies of immigrants from low-risk to high-risk areas, but most findings indi-
cate that immigrants retain the same risk as in their countries of origin. This may be because they
carry some protective factor with them, but these studies frequently involve non-white immigrants
in whom the disease is known to be rare and who may be genetically resistant.
All areas at medium to high risk for MS throughout the world have predominantly white popula-
tions. In countries with both white and non-white populations, MS rates are lower among non-
whites. For example, the disease is virtually non-existent among Australian Aborigines, New
Zealand Maoris and Black people in South Africa. In the United States, incidence and prevalence
rates are twice as high among whites as among African Americans regardless of latitude. Fur-
thermore, MS is also less frequent among North American Indians, Latin Americans, and people
of the Western Pacific Region than among whites.
Childhood multiple sclerosis

While MS is predominantly an illness of young to middle-aged adults, it is also increasingly appar-
ent that the disease can occur in children. Interest in, and knowledge of, paediatric MS has been
increasing, and as a consequence the number of children diagnosed has also risen considerably
over the last 10 years. At least 2.5–5% of all patients with MS experience their first clinical attack
prior to their 16th birthday, though this may be an underestimate.
Typically, with paediatric MS, the sex difference is not as marked as it is with adults, the ratio
of female to male being closer to 1:1 than the 2:1 that is normally cited for adults. This suggests
that, while the genetic implication of being female may influence MS risk, it appears to do so
much more after puberty.
Further evidence of the role that environmental factors play comes from the studies of children
of migrants. For example, the prevalence rates among the British-born children of immigrants from
India, Pakistan, and parts of Africa and the West Indies were very much higher than those recorded
for their parents and approximately equal to the expected rate for England.
IMPACT
Multiple sclerosis has a profound impact on patients’ social roles and the well-being of their
families. Varying degrees of functional decline typically accompany MS. Because the onset is
usually at about 30 years of age, the loss in productivity of people with MS can be substantial.
Such functional decline will often interfere with the opportunities for people with MS to perform
their customary roles. For example, physical disability — complicated by fatigue, depression and
possibly cognitive impairment — contributes to an unemployment rate as high as 70% among
people with MS; to replace lost earnings, they frequently collect disability benefits and social
welfare. People with MS use more health-care resources than the general population (5). Together
with their family members, they may also bear a financial burden related to home and transport
modifications and the need for additional personal services.
The socioeconomic impact of MS on the individual is well illustrated by a recent United King-
dom study (6). In this population-based survey of all known patients with MS and their relatives
in the county of Hampshire, England, about 53% of those who were employed at the time of diag-
nosis gave up their jobs, and the standard of living of 37% of patients and their families declined
as a direct result of the disease. The ability to continue in gainful employment or to maintain
social contacts and leisure activities correlates with the course and severity of the disease and
cognitive function. Most carers reported symptoms that clearly related to organic pathologies,
anxiety and symptoms of depression. The occurrence of these symptoms was associated with
disease severity. The professional careers of 57% of relatives were also adversely affected by
the patient’s illness.
The economic cost to society is also great (7 ). A recent economic analysis for the Australian
MS Society (Acting Positively) illustrated the impact of the disease, which is considered typical
(so far no global economic impact studies have been published). The Australian study found that
the burden of the disease is likely to grow. Prevalence is expected to grow by 6.7% in the next five
years, faster than population growth attributable to demographic ageing. The total financial costs
of MS in 2005 are estimated at more than US$ 450 m (0.07% of GDP) and US$ 29 070 per person
with MS, or US$ 23 per Australian per year. Lost productive capacity and the replacement value
of informal community care are the two largest cost components (8). The following key economic
factors were highlighted by the Australian study.
■ Informal care for people with MS in the community represents 43% of total costs, with an
average of 12.3 hours per week of informal care required per person with MS.
■ Aids and modifications for people with physical disability were estimated to represent a further
4.6% of total financial costs.
■ Production losses stemming from reduced work hours, temporary absences, early retirement
and premature death are responsible for around 26% of total economic costs.
■ Pharmaceuticals for people with MS, mainly beta-interferons, are estimated to represent 14%
of total costs.
■ Nursing home accommodation accounts for around 4.3% of total economic costs. Of the
estimated 730 people with MS in (high care) nursing homes 37% are under 65 years of age.
■ Other health-care costs — including hospitalizations, specialist and primary care and allied
health expenses — account for 4.4%. Research is 1.9% of health expenditure, below the aver-
age of 2.4%. Deadweight losses arising from taxation revenue foregone and welfare payment
transfers are estimated as US$ 10.5 million or 2.3% of total costs in 2005.
■ The burden of disease — the suffering and premature death experienced by people with
MS — is estimated to cost an additional 8968 DALYs (years of healthy life lost), with two thirds
attributable to disability and one third to premature death.
■ Last but not least, in Australia MS causes more disability and loss of life than all chronic back
pain, slipped discs, machinery accidents, rheumatic heart disease or mental retardation.
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT

Uncertainty over the cause or development of MS implies that prevention is not currently a realistic
option. Furthermore, there are no curative treatments available for MS (9). A number of disease-
modifying drugs have been developed in the past 20 years, however, which reduce the number
of attacks in the relapsing/remitting form of the disease. The extent to which eventual disease
burden and disability are limited by use of the drugs is less clear. The most widely used disease-
modifying drugs for MS are the beta-interferons (1a and 1b) and glatiramer acetate, which reduce
the frequency and perhaps the severity of relapses. Although these drugs have been introduced in
the developing regions, their high cost means many patients are unable to have access to them.
The United States National MS Society also has developed several guidelines and recommenda-
tions, mainly for medical treatment (such as changing therapy and early intervention). To date,
no medical treatments for the progressive forms of the disease exist, and results from studies
focusing on neuroprotection and repair are eagerly awaited.
Corticosteroids are the medications of choice for treating exacerbations and can be admin-
istered in the hospital or community setting (the latter is usually preferred) (10). In addition to
strategies aimed at the impact of the disease, drugs to ameliorate common MS symptoms — such
as urinary dysfunction, spasticity and neuropathic pain — are relatively well established and
widely used. European guidelines have been developed for both the use of the established dis-
ease-modifying drugs and the treatment of symptoms (11, 12).
Even though drug treatment options are relatively limited, significant improvements in the qual-
ity of life of people with MS can be supported by improved rehabilitation approaches. For patients
with relatively moderate disability, exercise (both aerobic and non-aerobic) has been found to be
useful, as has physiotherapy. There have been few, if any, studies evaluating the rehabilitation
needs of those with more severe disability.
Neurorehabilitation
The philosophy of neurorehabilitation, which emphasizes patient education and self-manage-
ment, is well suited to meet the complex and variable needs of MS (13). Neurorehabilitation aims
to improve independence and quality of life by maximizing ability and participation. It has been
defined by WHO as “an active process by which those disabled by injury or disease achieve a
full recovery or, if a full recovery is not possible, realize their optimal physical, mental and social
potential and are integrated into their most appropriate environment”. Together with Rehabilitation
in Multiple Sclerosis, the European Multiple Sclerosis Platform (EMSP) developed useful guidance
on this issue in their recommendations on MS rehabilitation services (14), one of the reference
guidelines for their European Code of Good Practice in MS.
The essential components of successful neurorehabilitation include expert multidisciplinary
assessment, goal-oriented programmes and evaluation of impact on patient and goal achievement
through the use of clinically appropriate, scientifically sound outcome measures incorporating the
patient’s perspective (14).
While these principles are intuitively sound, the evidence underpinning multidisciplinary as-
sessment and goal-orientated programmes is weak. Fundamental to the provision of robust
evidence of the benefits of rehabilitation interventions is the use of scientifically sound outcome
measures. In the field of MS, the limitations of the Expanded Disability Status Scale have been
well aired and it can be argued that the scale is even less relevant to neurorehabilitation as it fails
to incorporate the views of the patient.
The issues relating to the management of symptoms that affect people with MS are identical
to those concerning neurorehabilitation: the need for robust clinical trials based on scientifi-
cally sound outcome measures, multidisciplinary expertise and the involvement of patients. The
frequency with which these symptoms affect people with MS has been documented for a range
of symptoms including fatigue, spasticity, pain and cognitive impairment. The need for a multi-
disciplinary and multimodal approach to symptom management is described in a recent review
(15) and is exemplified in the case of spasticity (16).
Service delivery
Evaluating service delivery may be considered the most important and relevant issue in the man-
agement of MS. This is because it incorporates acute hospital and neurorehabilitation services
with community-based activities and has to bring together medical and social services in a way
that meets the complex and ever-changing needs of the person with MS.
Ideally, most services should be community-based with supporting expertise from the acute
hospital or rehabilitation centre at times of particular need (such as at diagnosis or during a severe
relapse) or complexity (when multiple symptoms interact and intensive inpatient rehabilitation is
required). The optimum method of service delivery has not yet been defined, and little comparison
has been made of existing services.
A recently published study (17 ) compared two forms of service delivery in a randomized con-
trolled trial. One group received what was described as “hospital home care”, in which patients
remained in the community but had immediate access to the hospital-based multidisciplinary team
when required, while the other group received routine care. No difference was seen in the level
of disability between the two groups after 12 months, but the “hospital home care” patients, who
were more intensely treated, had significantly less depression and improved quality of life.
There continue to be major problems worldwide in delivering a model of care that provides
truly coordinated services. There is serious inequity of service provision both within and across
countries, and an inordinate and unacceptable reliance on family and friends to provide essential
care. Establishing guidance, such as has been done by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence
(18), is a step forward but a global initiative such as that of the Multiple Sclerosis International
Federation (MSIF) to promote the quality of life of people with MS may be more effective (19). The
key challenge will be ensuring the translation of these guidelines into practice.
Delivery of care to people with MS varies significantly around the world. In part this reflects
the differences in incidence and therefore the relative importance afforded to the disease within
a country’s health system. Given the importance of expensive diagnostic equipment (scanners)
and the cost of the existing treatments, however, the variation also reflects different national
income levels. In the developed countries, the cost of the treatment is borne by the government
or insurance companies but in some regions the patients have to pay for drugs, making it difficult
for them to take advantage of emerging new treatments.
The delivery of care for people with long-term illnesses is becoming increasingly “patient cen-
tred”, and a culture of treatment by interdisciplinary teams is emerging. Within this model, the aim
is to offer patients a seamless service, which typically involves bringing together various health
professionals including doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and
language therapists, clinical psychologists and social workers. Other professionals with expertise
in treating neurologically disabled people cover dietetics, continence advisory and management
services, pain management, chiropody, podiatry and ophthalmology services.
Quality of life issues

MS will usually have a substantial adverse effect on a person’s quality of life. Improving quality
of life should be a key goal for policy-makers as well as those who advocate on behalf of people
with MS. A recent key step has been the publication by MSIF of its quality of life principles (19),
as mentioned above. The development of these principles was based on a series of interviews, a
literature review, the clinical, programmatic, and research experience of the authors, and review
by a work group and a technical oversight group organized by MSIF.
The principles are designed to be used by international organizations, national MS societies,
people with MS and their families, governments, health, social and continuing care providers,
employers, researchers, businesses and others to evaluate existing and proposed services and
programmes and to advocate for improvements. The areas covered include:
■ independence and empowerment;
■ medical care;
■ continuing care (long-term or social);
■ health promotion and disease prevention;
■ support for family members;
■ transport;
■ employment and volunteer activities;
■ disability benefits and cash assistance;
■ education;
■ housing and accessibility of buildings in the community.
Treatment gap
There is no doubt that a significant treatment gap exists in approaches to MS between countries
(and possibly within countries). Until a cure is found, people with MS have to rely on reducing
the inflammation during an acute phase by the use of corticosteroids and providing symptomatic
relief. The disease-modifying agents such as beta-interferon and glatiramer acetate can be offered
to decrease the relapses and disease burden. Ideally, this treatment programme requires early
diagnosis and adequate human resources and equipment. The situation is especially problematic
in the developing countries, as often equipment such as an MRI scanner is not available or is too
expensive. The disease-modifying agents are also costly and beyond the reach of many patients.
In addition, rehabilitation centres for people with MS are not available.
A further illustration of the treatment gap between rich and less developed countries in their
treatment of MS is apparent from data currently being collected by WHO, the MSIF and the EMSP.
These data, which will in time be integrated into an international comparative and interactive data-
base (MSIF/WHO Atlas of MS and European Map of MS), have been sourced by surveying neurolo-
gists and patient organizations across 98 geographically and economically diverse countries.
For example, in response to the key treatment question “What percentage of people with MS
who fulfil the clinical prescription criteria for disease-modifying drugs [in your country] receive
treatment?” the average answer from 15 responding members of the European Union was 64%.
This compares with (for example) 45% for Brazil, 50% for the Russian Federation, 10–15% for
Turkey and less than 5% for India.
RESEARCH
As with many neurological diseases, MS is extremely difficult to study. Even after several decades
of intense research activity, it remains a mysterious condition with no known pathogen or ac-
cepted determinants of its severity or course. Nonetheless, optimism amongst the MS research
community is high. Advances in non-invasive investigative techniques, particularly MRI, have led
to significant improvements in the ability to create images and track the course of the disease. Key
areas of current research encompass immunology, genetics, virology/bacteriology, and the biology
of the cells that make, maintain and repair myelin in the CNS (including developments in neural
stem cells). The key outcome of the research effort to date has been an improved understanding
of the pathology and the evolution of the disease and, as a consequence, new approaches to
treatment including repair and neuroprotection.
In addition to the advances being made at the therapeutic level, significant improvements are
being made in the management of the disease. In large part this has been stimulated by research-
ers adopting a more patient-centred approach. Whereas MS research used to be conducted by
physicians on behalf of people with MS, today’s research protocols are more likely to be driven
by patient perspectives. This is leading to research being carried out into factors determining the
quality of life of people with MS, such as health-care policy, employment and welfare matters and
the wider familial impact of the disease. Fortunately, there are active multiple sclerosis support
groups in several regions of the world that are involved in improving the quality of life of people
with MS.
TRAINING
There is a specific lack of public and professional awareness of the dimension of MS in the
domains of epidemiology and impact of disease on individuals, carers and society, including
impact on individual loss of independence, and cost of long-term care. In particular, the chronic
progressive nature of the condition must be better conveyed to all. MSlF, through its member
organizations, has proven very effective and capable of concerted action in the field of patient
and lay public education.

1 MS is the most prevalent inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous
system in young adults.
2 The cause is (as yet) unknown.
3 Initially, MS most often runs a relapsing/remitting course, later becoming progressive.
4 Depending on the site and extent of the lesions, a variety of symptoms may occur, often
in parallel.
5 Many of the symptoms may be treated effectively with drugs and rehabilitation measures.
6 Immunomodulating therapies may reduce relapse frequency and progression of MRI
abnormalities.
7 Rehabilitation is most important and aims at leading individuals to adapt their lifestyle.
8 Burden and costs, including the costs of treatment, are considerable for the persons
affected, their relatives and society.
REFERENCES
1. Polman CH et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald criteria”. Annals
of Neurology, 2005, 58:840–846.
2. Update on medical management of multiple sclerosis to staff of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of New South
Wales. Lidcombe, Multiple Sclerosis Society of New South Wales, 2003.
3. Warren S, Warren KG. Multiple sclerosis. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2001.
4. Rosati G. The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the world: an update. Neurological Sciences, 2001,
22:117–139.
5. Sternfeld L. Utilization and perceptions of healthcare services by people with MS. New York, US National
Multiple Sclerosis Society, 1995.
6. Hakim EA et al. The social impact of multiple sclerosis – a study of 305 patients and their relatives. Disability
and Rehabilitation, 2000, 22:288–293.
7. Kobelt G, Pugliatti M. Cost of multiple sclerosis in Europe. European Journal of Neurology, 2005, 12(Suppl.
1):63–67.
8. Acting positively: strategic implications of the economic costs of multiple sclerosis in Australia. Canberra,
Access Economics Pty Ltd. for Multiple Sclerosis Australia, 2005.
9. Polman CH et al. Multiple sclerosis – The guide to treatment and management. London, Multiple Sclerosis
International Federation, 2006.
10. Chataway J et al. Treating multiple sclerosis relapses at home or in hospital: a randomised controlled trial of
intravenous steroid delivery. Lancet Neurology, 2006, 5:565–571.
11. Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Consensus Group. Escalating immunotherapy of multiple sclerosis. Journal of
Neurology, 2004, 251:1329–1339.
12. Henze T, Rieckmann P, Toyka KV and Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Consensus Group of the German Multiple
Sclerosis Society. Symptomatic treatment of multiple sclerosis. European Neurology, 2006, 56:78–105.
13. Thompson AJ. Neurorehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: foundations, facts and fiction. Current Opinion in
Neurology, 2005, 18:267–271.
14. Recommendations on rehabilitation services for persons with multiple sclerosis in Europe. Brussels, European
Multiple Sclerosis Platform and Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis, 2004 (European Code of Good Practice
in Multiple Sclerosis).
15. Crayton H, Heyman R, Rossman H. A multimodal approach to managing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis.
Neurology, 2004, 11(Suppl. 5):S12–S18.
16. Thompson AJ et al. Clinical management of spasticity (Editorial review). Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery
and Psychiatry, 2005, 76:459–463.
17. Pozzilli C et al. Home based management in multiple sclerosis: results of a randomised controlled trial.
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 2002, 73:250–255.
18. Multiple sclerosis: management of multiple sclerosis in primary and secondary care. London, National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2003.
19. Principles to promote the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis. London, Multiple Sclerosis
RECOMMENDED READING
■ Compston A et al., eds. Multiple sclerosis. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2005.
■ Goodin DS et al. Disease modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: report of the Therapeutics and
Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the MS Council for
Clinical Practice Guidelines. Neurology, 2002, 58:169–178.
■ Joy JE, Johnston RB, eds. Multiple sclerosis: current status and strategies for the future. Washington, DC,
Institute of Medicine, 2001.
■ Murray TJ. Multiple sclerosis: the history of a disease. New York, Demos Medical Publishing, 2005.
■ Polman CH et al. Multiple sclerosis – The guide to treatment and management. London, Multiple Sclerosis
■ Warren S, Warren KG. Multiple sclerosis. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2001.
■ Multiple sclerosis: management of multiple sclerosis in primary and secondary care. London, National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2003.
■ Principles to promote the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis. London, Multiple Sclerosis
■ Recommendations on rehabilitation services for persons with multiple sclerosis in Europe. Brussels,
European Multiple Sclerosis Platform and Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis, 2004 (European Code of Good
Practice in Multiple Sclerosis).
3.5 Neuroinfections
96 Viral diseases
100 Mycobacterial and other bacterial diseases
103 Parasitic diseases
Infectious diseases that involve the nerv-
107 Implications and prevention ous system affect millions of people
108 Conclusions and recommendations around the world. They constitute the sixth
cause of neurological consultation in pri-
mary care services and are reported globally by a quarter of WHO’s Member
States and by half the countries in some parts of Africa and South-East Asia.
Neuroinfections are of major importance since ancient times and, even with the
advent of effective antibiotics and vaccines, still remain a major challenge in
many parts of the world, especially in developing nations.
Approximately 75% of the world population live in developing countries where the worst health
indicators are found. Their major health problems are generally related to warm climate, over-
crowding, severe poverty, illiteracy and high infant mortality which induce a burden of illness
from communicable diseases that differs drastically from the rest of the world. Added to these
problems, the health budgets are low and opportunities for community interventions very small.
A demographic transition is under way throughout the world: as populations age, the burden of
noncommunicable diseases (cardiovascular illnesses, stroke and cancer) increases, particularly
in the least favoured regions. Thus, the majority of least-developed countries are facing a double
burden from communicable and noncommunicable diseases. The global public health community
is now faced with a more complex and diverse pattern of adult disease than previously expected
and proposes a “double response” that integrates prevention and control of both communicable
and noncommunicable diseases within a comprehensive health-care system (1).
Some diseases that used to be found in the developed world but have virtually disappeared,
such as poliomyelitis, leprosy and neurosyphilis, are still taking their toll in developing regions.
In addition, some of the protozoan and helminthic infections that are so characteristic of the
tropics are now being seen with increasing frequency in developed countries owing to migration,
large-scale military ventures and rapid means of transport that have the undesirable potential to
introduce disease vectors. Although some infectious diseases have been nearly wiped out, the
vast majority of them will not be eliminated in the foreseeable future. Indeed, WHO reports that at
least 30 new diseases have been scientifically recognized around the world in the last 20 years
(2). These emerging diseases include hantavirus (first identified in the United States in 1993),
cryptosporidiosis (a waterborne cause of diarrhoea that recently affected more than 400 000
people in a single outbreak in the United States), the Ebola virus from Africa and the human im-
munodeficiency virus (HIV), among others. Re-emerging diseases are the infections once thought
under control and that re-emerge: diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, cholera and even
diphtheria are making a comeback.
Other main concerns are the development of drug-resistant organisms, the increasing number
of immunocompromised populations such as those affected by the acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome (AIDS) and malnutrition, and the rising number of diseases previously considered rare
(Lyme disease, rickettsioses, Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease and Ebola). Most of these diseases can
cause high mortality rates in some populations and produce severe complications, disability and
economic burden for individuals, families and health systems. Education, surveillance, develop-
ment of new drugs and vaccines, and other policies are in constant evolution to fight against old
and emerging infectious diseases of the nervous system.
This chapter covers some of the more frequent neuroinfections that have a major impact on
health systems, especially in the developing world. Infectious diseases that involve the nervous
system are reported globally by 26.5% of WHO’s Member States and by 50% of countries in some
parts of Africa and South-East Asia (3).
■ Viral diseases: HIV/AIDS, viral encephalitis, poliomyelitis and rabies.
■ Mycobacterial and other bacterial diseases: tuberculosis, leprosy neuropathy, bacterial men-
ingitis and tetanus.
■ Parasitic diseases: neurocysticercosis, cerebral malaria, toxoplasmosis, American trypano-
somiasis (Chagas disease), African trypanosomiasis (sleeping sickness), schistosomiasis and
hydatidosis.
VIRAL DISEASES
HIV/AIDS
The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is caused by a retrovirus known as the hu-
man immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which attacks and impairs the body’s natural defence system
against disease and infection. HIV is a slow-acting virus that may take years to produce illness
in a person. During this period, an HIV-infected person’s defence system is impaired, and other
viruses, bacteria and parasites take advantage of this “opportunity” to further weaken the body
and cause various illnesses, such as pneumonia, tuberculosis and mycosis. When a person starts
having such opportunistic infections, he or she has AIDS. The amount of time it takes for HIV
infection to become full-blown AIDS depends on the person’s general health and nutritional status
before and during the time of HIV infection. The average time for an adult is approximately 10
years without antiretroviral therapy (ART). Women are more likely to be infected with HIV than
men. Children are also at risk (4).
The number of people living with HIV globally has reached its highest level with an estimated
40.3 million people, rising from an estimated 37.5 million in 2003. More than three million people
died of AIDS-related illnesses in 2005; more than 500 000 of them were children. Sub-Saharan
Africa continues to be the most affected region globally, with 64% of new infections occurring
there. HIV treatment has improved markedly, however, and hundreds of thousands of people are
now living longer in better health because they are receiving ART: an estimated 250–350 000
deaths were averted in 2005 because of expanded access to HIV treatment (5).
Neurological complications occur in 39–70% of patients with AIDS and significantly impact on
functional capacity, quality of life and survival. Neuropathological examination identifies abnormal
neurological conditions in more than 90% of autopsies but is not always demonstrated clinically
(6). The main etiological considerations include primary HIV-related syndromes, opportunistic
conditions, inflammatory conditions, and medications (7 ) (see Table 3.5.1).
Table 3.5.1 Neurological diseases in the HIV-infected individual

Type of condition Examples
Primary HIV-related syndromes HIV-associated cognitive–motor complex
HIV-associated myelopathy
HIV-associated polyneuropathy
HIV-associated myopathy
Opportunistic conditions Toxoplasma encephalitis
Cryptococcal meningitis
Cytomegalovirus encephalitis/polyradiculitis
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Primary central nervous system lymphoma
Inflammatory conditions Acquired demyelinating neuropathies
Aseptic meningitis
Treatment-associated conditions Zidovudine-induced myopathy
Nucleoside analog-induced neuropathy
Source: (7 ).
Multiple investigations in recent years suggest that the effects of neurological complications
and opportunistic infections related to HIV have a clear trend to diminish since the introduction of
new and more powerful antiretroviral agents. Nevertheless, prolonging the life of patients infected
by the virus, attributable to therapeutic success, paradoxically favours the emergence of some
neurological affections as treatment-associated neuropathy/myopathy; these affections can be
more important than the benefits of therapy to achieve viral suppression.
Accurately diagnosing neurological disease in the HIV-infected individual is crucial for several
reasons. First, many complications are treatable and their treatment can lead to either increased
survival or improved quality of life. Second, identifying currently untreatable conditions provides
the patient with the opportunity to participate in a growing number of therapeutic trials. Further,
an accurate and focused diagnostic assessment and treatment plan will limit therapeutic misad-
ventures and lead to cost-effective care delivery.
The worldwide use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has played an important
role in changing the incidence of neurological complications in AIDS patients. Recent studies
have shown that HAART has produced both quantitative and qualitative changes in the pattern
of HIV neuropathology: an overall decrease in the incidence of some cerebral opportunistic infec-
tions such as toxoplasmosis and cytomegalovirus encephalitis, for which successful treatment is
available, whereas other uncommon types and new variants of brain infections, such as varicella-
zoster encephalitis, herpes simplex virus encephalitis or HIV encephalitis, are being reported more
frequently as ART promotes some immune recovery and increases survival (8). In developing
countries, some endemic infections such as tuberculosis and Chagas disease have re-emerged in
direct association with the spreading of HIV, and are now being considered as markers of AIDS.
Unfortunately, some patients may develop paradoxical clinical outcomes after starting treat-
ment with HAART, known as neurological immune restoration inflammatory syndrome (NIRIS).
Some treatment-related neurological disorders, like zidovudine-induced myopathy, nucleoside
analog-induced neuropathy and efavirenz-induced neuropsychiatric disorders, can be more im-
portant than the benefits of the therapy of viral suppression (9).
Some therapies can prevent, treat or even cure many of the opportunistic infections and relieve
the symptoms associated with them, but there is no cure for HIV/AIDS. The core benefit of HAART
lies in its ability to reduce the rate of opportunistic infections by enhancing immune function,
slowing viral replication in the body and thereby improving patients’ quality of life and diminishing
mortality. The cost of antiretroviral drugs is declining but, unfortunately, the treatments are still
not affordable or accessible for most people.
Nevertheless, these important advances over the last decade have transformed HIV infection
from a short-term, inevitably fatal disease to a chronic condition amenable to medical manage-
ment, similar to diabetes or congestive heart failure.
It is important to integrate HIV prevention and care, and the challenges are immense: world-
wide, fewer than one in five people at risk of becoming infected with HIV has access to basic
prevention services. Of people living with HIV, only one in ten has been tested and is aware of the
infection. For prevention interventions to achieve the results necessary to get ahead of the epi-
demic, projects with short-term horizons must translate into long-term programmatic strategies.
In settings in which HIV is largely sexually transmitted, information and education campaigns
can save lives. For example, intensive prevention programmes in the Mbeya region of the United
Republic of Tanzania led to an increase in the use of condoms and the treatment of sexually trans-
mitted infections between 1994 and 2000; those changes were accompanied by a decline in HIV
prevalence among 15–24-year-old women from 21% to 15% in the same period (10). In settings
in which HIV transmission is linked more closely to injecting drug use, harm-reduction strategies
(for example, the provision of clean injecting equipment as well as adequate therapy for drug de-
pendence) have proved to be effective. Other measures include voluntary counselling and testing,
and improving women’s health — including access to family planning and safe childbirth — in
order to prevent HIV transmission from mother to infant. There is no cure for HIV/AIDS.
Viral encephalitis
Acute viral encephalitis is often an unusual manifestation of common viral infections and most
commonly affects children and young adults. Every day, more types of viruses are being as-
sociated with encephalitis (see Box 3.5.1), and its variable presence depends on the age group,
geographical zone, season of the year and the state of health of patients. In the United States,
epidemiological studies calculate the incidence of viral encephalitis approximately at 3.5–7.4 per
100 000 population. Estimates have been given for some causes of viral encephalitis: for example,
it has been estimated that herpes simplex encephalitis (HSE) has an annual incidence of about
one per million.
Herpes simplex encephalitis is the most important and common cause of fatal sporadic viral
encephalitis in the industrialized world. At a global level, it seems that the most common cause
of epidemic encephalitis is actually Japanese B encephalitis, with 10–15 000 deaths per year,
markedly more than for herpes simplex encephalitis. It must be considered, however, that in up
to about 50% of cases of viral encephalitis no specific cause can be found, so the predominant
type is difficult to determine (11).
Box 3.5.1 Causes of viral encephalitis

■ Herpes simplex virus (HSV-1, HSV-2) ■ Arboviruses, e.g.
■ Other herpes viruses: › Japanese B encephalitis virus
› varicella zoster vírus (VZV) › St Louis encephalitis virus
› cytomegalovirus (CMV) › West Nile encephalitis virus
› Epstein–Barr vírus (EBV) › Eastern, Western, and Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus
› human herpes vírus 6 (HHV6) › Tick-borne encephalitis viruses
■ Adenoviruses ■ Bunyoviruses, e.g. La Crosse strain of California virus
■ Influenza A ■ Reoviruses, e.g. Colorado tick fever virus
■ Enteroviruses, poliovirus ■ Arenaviruses, e.g. lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus
■ Measles, mumps and rubella viruses ■ Retroviruses, e.g. HIV-1
■ Rabies ■ Papovavirus, e.g. JC virus
Source: adapted from (11).

Viruses enter the central nervous system (CNS) through two distinct routes: hematogenous
dissemination or neuronal retrograde dissemination. Hematogenous spread is the most common
path. Humans are usually incidental terminal hosts of many viral encephalitides. Arbovirus en-
cephalitides are zoonoses, with the virus surviving in infection cycles involving biting arthropods
and various vertebrates, especially birds and rodents. The virus can be transmitted by an insect
bite and then undergoes local replication in the skin.
Patients with viral encephalitis are marked by acute onset of a febrile illness and can experi-
ence signs and symptoms of meningeal irritation, focal neurological signs, seizures, alteration of
consciousness and behavioural and speech disturbances. The diagnosis is made by immunologi-
cal tests, neuroimaging techniques, electroencephalography and, sometimes, brain biopsy. No
specific treatment is available for every encephalitis, and the illness often requires only medical
support. The mortality rate and severity of sequelae depend largely on the etiological agent.
Herpes virus encephalitis carries a mortality rate of 70% in untreated patients, with severe se-
quelae among survivors. Pharmacotherapy for herpes virus encephalitis consists of acyclovir and
vidarabine. Effective preventive measures include control of vectors by removing water-holding
containers and discarded tyres. Vaccines are available for eastern equine encephalitis, western
equine encephalitis, and Venezuelan equine encephalitis in horses. Despite control efforts and
disease surveillance, the 1999 outbreak of West Nile virus in New York with subsequent spread
to other states showed that different viruses may spread because of increased international travel
and trade (12).
Japanese encephalitis is a leading cause of viral encephalitis in Asia, with 30–50 000 clini-
cal cases reported annually. It occurs from the islands of the Western Pacific in the east to the
Pakistan border in the west, and from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the north to
Papua New Guinea in the south. Japanese encephalitis virus is transmitted by mosquitoes, which
breed particularly in flooded rice fields. Pigs are the amplifying hosts. Distribution of the infection
is thus very significantly linked to irrigated rice production combined with pig-rearing. An effective
killed vaccine is available, but it is expensive and requires one primary vaccination followed by
two boosters. It provides adequate protection for travellers but has limited public health value in
areas where health service resources are scarce.
Poliomyelitis
Poliomyelitis is a crippling disease caused by any one of three related viruses, poliovirus types 1,
2 or 3. The primary way to spread poliovirus is through the faecal–oral route: the virus enters the
body through the mouth when people eat food or drink water that is contaminated with faeces.
The virus then multiplies in the intestine, enters the bloodstream, and may invade certain types
of nerve cells which it can damage or destroy. Polioviruses spread very easily in areas with poor
hygiene. In any child under 15 years of age with acute flaccid paralysis or any person of any age
with paralytic illness, poliomyelitis always has to be suspected.
In 1963, Cuba began using an oral vaccine in a series of nationwide polio campaigns. Shortly
thereafter, indigenous wild poliovirus transmission was interrupted. Through an extraordinary in-
ternational effort that begun 18 years ago, indigenous polioviruses have now been eliminated from
all but four countries of the world, down from over 125 when the collaboration started (13). This
progress is the result of a unique partnership forged between governments and the spearheading
partners of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative — WHO, Rotary International, the United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and UNICEF — to take up key challenges to
reach all children, everywhere. The most visible element of the polio eradication initiative has
been the National Immunization Days, as they require the immunization of every child under five
years of age (nearly 20% of a country’s population) several times a year for a number of years in
a row. As the result of an aggressive, deliberate and internationally coordinated effort, endemic
poliomyelitis has changed from being a devastating disease with a global distribution to one that
is now endemic in four countries. In 2005, 1951 cases were reported worldwide.
Rabies
Rabies is one of the oldest and most feared diseases reported in medical literature. Rabies is a
viral zoonosis (an animal disease transmissible to humans) caused by rhabdoviruses of the genus
Lyssavirus. The disease is maintained in nature by several domestic and wild animal reservoir
species, including dogs, foxes, mongooses, raccoons, skunks and many species of bat. Human
infection is incidental to the epidemiology of rabies. In terms of risks to human health, dogs are
the most dangerous reservoir: more than 99.9 % of human deaths from rabies worldwide result
from the bite of a rabid dog. It is estimated that 50 000 persons die of rabies each year, mainly
in Africa and Asia.
Human infection occurs when the virus, contained in the saliva of a rabid animal, is transmitted
through penetrating bite wounds, open cuts in the skin, or contact with mucous membranes. The
severity of the bite determines the risk of infection. The virus slowly travels up the nerve to reach
the CNS where it replicates and then travels down nerves to the salivary glands where there is
further replication. Man is occasionally infected, and once infection is established in the CNS the
outcome is almost invariably fatal.
Second-generation vaccines consisting of highly purified vaccines prepared on primary and
continuous cell lines and in embryonating eggs are available, though expensive, to prevent the
occurrence of the disease in persons exposed to an animal suspected of rabies. The vaccines
are usually administered according to regimens involving fewer doses (usually five or six) than
those used for brain tissue vaccines. The regimens most commonly applied in the world are those
recommended by WHO.
Control of rabies depends on education, vaccination of dogs, cats and farm animals and noti-
fication of suspected cases to local authorities (14).
MYCOBACTERIAL AND OTHER BACTERIAL DISEASES

Tuberculosis
With nine million new cases in 2004, resulting in 1.7 million deaths, tuberculosis is a leading
infectious cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide (15). The resurgence of tuberculosis in
many countries is attributable to its interaction with HIV infection, which has pernicious effects.
Tuberculosis is the leading cause of death among people with HIV, while infection with HIV is the
most potent risk factor for a latent tuberculosis infection to convert to active disease (16). Although
tuberculosis most commonly affects the lungs (the usual site of primary infection), it can cause
disease in any part of the body as a consequence of haematogenous spread from the lung. The
proportion of all cases of tuberculosis that are extrapulmonary (i.e. in sites other than the lungs)
varies between countries but is typically about 10–20%. Among extrapulmonary cases, the most
common sites involved are the lymph nodes and the pleura, but the sites of tuberculosis associ-
ated with neurological disorders (meninges, brain and vertebrae) also constitute an important
group. Meningeal tuberculosis has a high case-fatality rate, and neurological sequelae are com-
mon among survivors. Cerebral tuberculoma usually presents as a space-occupying lesion with
focal signs depending on the location in the brain. Vertebral tuberculosis usually presents with
local pain, swelling and deformity, and there is risk of neurological impairment because of spinal
cord or cauda equina compression.
The diagnosis of nervous system tuberculosis is often difficult, because of its nature of great
simulator and also because of limited access to methods to confirm it (17 ). Diagnosis depends on
epidemiological and clinical data and findings during cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), neuroimaging and
bacteriological studies. Although not a direct consequence of tuberculosis, peripheral neuropathy

can occur in tuberculosis patients as a side-effect of treatment with isoniazid, especially among
patients who are malnourished, abuse alcohol, or are infected with HIV.
There are important public health approaches to the primary prevention of these tuberculosis-
related conditions and to the secondary prevention of their adverse consequences. The most
important overall approach to primary prevention consists of cutting the chain of transmission by
case-finding and treatment. This approach is the basis of the international tuberculosis control
strategy known as DOTS, which forms a central pillar of WHO’s new strategy for its Stop TB
campaign (16). Although BCG vaccination has little impact in reducing the number of adults with
infectious pulmonary tuberculosis, it is of crucial importance in preventing disseminated and
severe cases of disease (including tuberculosis meningitis) in children. Therefore, in countries
with high tuberculosis prevalence, WHO recommends a policy of routine BCG immunization for
all neonates as part of the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI). It is estimated that the
100 million BCG vaccinations given to infants worldwide in 2002 will have prevented 30 000
cases of tuberculosis meningitis in children during their first five years of life (18). The primary
prevention of isoniazid-induced peripheral neuropathy is by routine administration of pyridoxine
to tuberculosis patients.
The main public health approach to the secondary prevention of the adverse consequences of
tuberculosis disease of the meninges, brain and vertebrae is through promoting the application of
the International Standards for Tuberculosis Care (19) to ensure prompt diagnosis and effective
treatment. High-quality tuberculosis care will result not only in patients having the best possible
outcome of treatment, but also in the public health benefit of decreased tuberculosis transmission by
infectious cases and thereby, ultimately, an impact on the global burden of all tuberculosis cases, in-
cluding those associated with neurological disorder. The key steps in diminishing the global burden of
neurological disorder associated with tuberculosis are to promote: investment in full implementation
of the Stop TB strategy and International Standards for Tuberculosis Care; full immunization cover-
age so that all neonates are protected by BCG from risk of disseminated and severe tuberculosis;
and better understanding of the epidemiology of tuberculosis disease associated with neurological
disorder through improved surveillance in countries with high tuberculosis prevalence.
Leprosy neuropathy
Leprosy is the cause of the most common treatable neuropathy in the world, caused by Myco-
bacterium leprae. The incubation period of the disease is about five years: symptoms, however,
can take as long as 20 years to appear. The infection could affect nerves by direct invasion or
during immunological reactions. In rare instances, the diagnosis can be missed, because leprosy
neuropathy may present without skin lesions (neuritic form of leprosy). Patients with this form of
disease display only signs and symptoms of sensory impairment and muscle weakness, posing
difficulties for diagnosis, particularly in services where diagnostic facilities such as bacilloscopy,
electroneuromyography and nerve biopsy are not available.
Delay in treatment is a major problem, because the disease usually progresses and the resulting
disability if untreated may be severe, even though mycobacteria may be eliminated. Delay in treat-
ment is, however, usually a result of delayed presentation because of the associated stigma. People
with long-term leprosy may lose the use of their hands or feet because of repeated injury resulting
from lack of sensation. Early diagnosis and treatment with the WHO-recommended multidrug therapy
(MDT) is essential in order to prevent the disease from progressing and resulting in disability.
Bacterial meningitis
Bacterial meningitis is a very common cause of morbidity, mortality and neurological compli-
cations in both children and adults, especially in children. It has an annual incidence of 4–6
cases per 100 000 adults (defined as patients older than 16 years of age), and Streptococcus
pneumoniae and Neisseria meningitidis are responsible for 80% of all cases (20). In developing
countries, overall case-fatality rates of 33–44% have been reported, rising to over 60% in adult
groups (21). Bacterial meningitis can occur in epidemics that can have a serious impact on large
populations.
The highest burden of meningococcal disease occurs in sub-Saharan Africa, which is known
as the “meningitis belt”, an area that stretches from Senegal in the west to Ethiopia in the east,
with an estimated total population of 300 million people. The hyperendemicity in this area is at-
tributable to the particular climate (dry season between December and June, with dust winds) and
social habits: overcrowded housing at family level and large population displacements for pilgrim-
ages and traditional markets at regional level. Because of herd immunity (whereby transmission
is blocked when a critical percentage of the population had been immunized, thus extending
protection to the unvaccinated), the epidemics occur in a cyclical fashion.
Meningitis is characterized by acute onset of fever and headache, together with neck stiffness,
altered consciousness and seizures. The diagnosis can be confirmed by its clinical characteristics
and bacteriological and immunological analyses of the CSF. Antibiotic treatment is effective in
most cases but several neurological complications can remain, such as cognitive difficulties, mo-
tor disabilities, hypoacusia and epilepsy. In a recent review, treatment with corticosteroids was
associated with a significant reduction in neurological sequelae and mortality (22).
Progress is more likely to come from investigations into preventive measures, especially the
use of available vaccines and the development of new vaccines. Meningitis caused by Haemophilus
influenzae type B has been nearly eliminated in developed countries since routine vaccination with
the H. influenzae type B conjugate vaccine was initiated. The introduction of conjugate vaccines
against S. pneumoniae may substantially reduce the burden of childhood pneumococcal menin-
gitis and may even produce herd immunity among adults. The approval in 2005 of a conjugate
meningococcal vaccine against serogroups A, C, Y and W135 is also an important advance that
may decrease the incidence of this devastating infection. Local and nationwide surveillance, in-
cluding the laboratory investigation of suspected cases, is critical for early detection of epidemics
and the formulation of appropriate responses.
Tetanus
Tetanus is acquired through exposure to the spores of the bacterium Clostridium tetani which are
universally present in the soil. The disease is caused by the action of a potent neurotoxin produced
during the growth of the bacteria in dead tissues, e.g. dirty wounds or — for neonatal tetanus —
in the umbilicus following non-sterile delivery. Tetanus is not transmitted from person to person:
infection usually occurs when dirt enters a wound or cut. At the end of the 1980s, neonatal tetanus
was considered a major public health problem. WHO estimated that, in 1988, 787 000 newborn
children died of neonatal tetanus, a rate of 6.5 cases per 1000 live births. In 2004 the number of
reported cases was 13 448. A worldwide total of 213 000 deaths were estimated to have occurred
in 2002, 198 000 of them concerning children younger than five years of age (23).
Unlike poliomyelitis and smallpox, the disease cannot be eradicated because tetanus spores are
present in the environment. Once infection occurs, mortality rates are extremely high, especially in
areas where appropriate medical care is not available. However, this death toll can be prevented.
Neonatal tetanus can be prevented by immunizing pregnant women and improving the hygienic
conditions of delivery. Adult tetanus can be prevented by immunizing people at risk, such as work-
ers manipulating soil; others at risk of cuts should be also included in the prevention measures.
Some forms of toxoid are available (DTP, DT, TT or Td) and at least three primary doses should be
given by the intramuscular route. Vaccination coverage with three doses of DTP is more than 80%
for most countries around the world. The Maternal and Neonatal Tetanus elimination initiative was
launched by UNICEF, WHO and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in 1999, revitalizing
the goal of elimination of maternal and neonatal tetanus as a public health problem, defined as
less than one case of neonatal tetanus per 1000 live births in every district of every country.
PARASITIC DISEASES
Neurocysticercosis
Cysticercosis is infection by the larvae of the pork tapeworm Taenia solium. The adult tapeworm
(flat, ribbon-like, approximately 2–4 m long) lives only in the small intestine of humans, who
acquire it (taeniasis) by eating undercooked pork containing the viable larvae or cysticerci. A
tapeworm carrier passes microscopic Taenia eggs with the faeces, contaminating the close en-
vironment and contacts and causing cysticercosis to pigs and humans. Human beings therefore
acquire cysticercosis through faecal–oral contamination with T. solium eggs (24). Thus, vegetar-
ians and other people who do not eat pork can acquire cysticercosis. Recent epidemiological
evidence suggests that the most common source of infective eggs is a symptom-free tapeworm
carrier in the household. Therefore, cysticercosis should be seen as a disease mostly transmitted
from person to person (25). In the CNS, the larvae or cysticerci can cause epilepsy, hydrocephalus,
spinal cord involvement, stroke, etc. (24, 26).
Cysticercosis is the parasitic disease that most frequently affects the CNS and is one of the
major health problems of developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In addition,
because of high immigration rates from endemic to non-endemic areas and tourism, neurocys-
ticercosis is now commonly seen in countries that were previously free of the disease. Despite
the advances in diagnosis and therapy, neurocysticercosis remains endemic in most low income
countries, where it represents one of the most common causes of acquired epilepsy (27 ). Almost
50 000 deaths attributable to neurocysticercosis occur every year. Many more patients survive
but are left with irreversible brain damage — with all the social and economic consequences that
this implies (28). Seizures occur in up to 70% of patients. Several articles from different countries
in Latin America consistently showed an association between around 30% of all seizures and
cysticercosis (29).
Accurate diagnosis of neurocysticercosis is based on assessment of the clinical and epidemio-
logical data and the results of neuroimaging studies and immunological tests (30). Therapy must
be individualized according to the location of parasites and the degree of disease activity: this
implies symptomatic therapy, anticysticidal drugs (albendazole/praziquantel), antiepileptic drugs
and surgical treatment of complications such as hydrocephalus.
Neurocysticercosis is one of a few conditions included in a list of potentially eradicable infec-
tious diseases of public health importance (31). The control strategy that seems promising at the
moment is a combination of different available tools in order to interrupt or reduce the cycle of di-
rect person-to-person transmission: mass human chemotherapy to eliminate the tapeworm stage,
enforced meat inspection and control, improvement of pig husbandry and inspection, treatment of
infected animals, surveillance, identification and treatment of individuals who are direct sources
of contagion (human carriers of adult tapeworm) and their close contacts, combined with hygiene
education and better sanitation. Animal vaccines are under development. Major obstacles include
the lack of basic sanitary facilities in endemic areas, the extent of domestic pig-rearing, the costs
of the interventions, and their cultural acceptability. Multiple genotypes of T. solium ramifications
have been discovered in different regions, which could explain some of the possible differences
in pathology of T. solium worldwide. Recently, a proposal was published to declare neurocysticer-
cosis an international reportable disease (32). WHO suggests that all endemic countries should
recognize the importance of taeniasis and cysticercosis, collect epidemiological data and adopt
policies and strategies for their control. So far, the infection has not been eliminated from any
region by a specific programme and no national control programmes are yet in place. Successful
pilot demonstrations of control measures have been or are being conducted in Cameroon, Ecuador,
Mexico and Peru, and a regional action plan developed in 2002 for eastern and southern Africa
is now under way.
Cerebral malaria
Malaria remains a serious public health problem in the tropics, mostly in Africa. There exist four
Plasmodium species that affect humans; of these, only Plasmodium falciparum can sequester in
capillaries of the CNS and cause cerebral malaria. The infection is acquired when the parasite is
inoculated through the skin during the sting of an infected Anopheles mosquito. Some patients
with cerebral malaria present with diffuse cerebral oedema, small haemorrhages and occlusion
of cerebral vessels by parasitized red cells. The burden of falciparum malaria is not only because
of infection and mortality: the neurocognitive sequelae add significantly to this burden (33).
P. falciparum is identified by examination of blood smears with Giemsa stain. Since parasitae-
mia is cyclical, repeated examinations may be required. The CSF is normal in cerebral malaria.
Neuroimaging studies may demonstrate brain swelling, cerebral infarcts, or small haemorrhages
in severe cases. Artemisinin derivatives and quinine are the drugs of choice for cerebral malaria.
Despite therapy, mortality remains high in severe or complicated malaria (34).
Preventive strategies relied upon are: the early treatment of malaria infections with effective
medicines (artemisinin-based combination therapies) to prevent the progression of the disease to
severe malaria; and vector control through different practices to reduce the rate of infection (use
of insecticide-treated nets, bednets, insecticide sprays and mosquito coils). All these methods
have been found to be highly cost effective. At present, multiple studies are under way to modify
Plasmodium genes in order to diminish parasite virulence and consequently the morbidity and
mortality attributable to malaria.
Toxoplasmosis
Toxoplasmosis is a disease caused by an obligate intracellular protozoal parasite termed Toxo-
plasma gondii. Human infection usually occurs via the oral or transplacental route. Consumption
of raw or undercooked meat containing viable tissue cysts (principally lamb and pork) and direct
ingestion of infective oocysts in other foods (including vegetables contaminated by feline faeces)
are common sources of infection. Transplacental infection may occur if the mother acquires an
acute infection or if a latent infection is reactivated during immunosuppression. In immunocom-
petent women a primary infection during early pregnancy may lead to fetal infection, with death of
the fetus or severe postnatal manifestations. Later in pregnancy, maternal infection results in mild
or subclinical fetal disease. In adults, most T. gondii infections are subclinical, but severe infection
can occur in patients who are immunocompromised, such as those with AIDS and malignancies.
Affected organs include both the grey and white matter of the brain, retina, alveolar lining of the
lungs, heart, and skeletal muscle.
Patients with AIDS are at particular risk for developing disseminated toxoplasmosis, which more
often manifests as CNS abnormalities. As many as 50% of patients with AIDS who are seropositive
for T. gondii develop encephalitis. Toxoplasmosis is the most common cause of a focal brain lesion
in patients with AIDS. The disease commonly localizes to the basal ganglia, though other sites in
the brain and spinal cord may be affected. A solitary focus may be seen in one third of patients, but
multiple foci are more common. In AIDS-related Toxoplasma encephalitis, a well-circumscribed
indolent granulomatous process or features of diffuse necrotizing encephalitis occur.
For most people, prevention of toxoplasmosis is not a serious concern, as infection generally
causes no symptoms or mild symptoms. High-risk groups, however, should consider being tested
for Toxoplasma infection. HIV-infected individuals who test positive should receive drugs to prevent
development of toxoplasmosis when their CD4 count falls below 100 (35). Pregnant women,
women who plan to become pregnant, and immunocompromised individuals who test negative
for Toxoplasma infection should take precautions against becoming infected. Precautions consist
in measures such as consuming only properly frozen or cooked meats, avoiding cleaning cats’
litter pans and avoiding contact with cats of unknown feeding history.
American trypanosomiasis: Chagas disease

Chagas disease is a serious problem of public health in Latin America, and is becoming more
important in developed nations owing to the high flow of immigrants from endemic areas. Chagas
disease is caused by Trypanosoma cruzi, a protozoan that it is transmitted by means of triatomine
insects. Up to 8% of the population in Latin America are seropositive, but only 10–30% of them
develop symptomatic disease (36).
The disease is a major cause of congestive heart failure, sudden death related to chronic
Chagas disease, and cerebral embolism (stroke). Chagas disease can be diagnosed by demonstra-
tion of T. cruzi in blood smears and CSF samples or by serological testing. Neuroimaging usually
demonstrates the location and extent of the cerebral infarct. Secondary prevention of stroke with
long-term anticoagulation is recommended for all chagasic patients with stroke and heart failure,
cardiac arrhythmias or ventricular aneurisms.
Traditional control programmes in Latin American countries have focused on the spraying of
insecticides on houses, household annexes and other buildings. National programmes aimed at
the interruption of the domestic and peridomestic cycles of transmission involving vectors, animal
reservoirs and humans are feasible and have proved to be very effective. A prime example is the
programme that has been operating in Brazil since 1975, when 711 municipalities had triato-
mine-infested dwellings: 10 years later only 186 municipalities remained infested, representing
a successful accomplishment of the programme’s objectives in 74% of the originally infested
areas (37 ).
African trypanosomiasis: sleeping sickness

African trypanosomiasis, also known as sleeping sickness, is a severe disease that is fatal if left
untreated. The causative agents are protozoan parasites of the genus Trypanosoma, which enter
the bloodstream via the bite of blood-feeding tsetse flies (Glossina spp.). The acute form of the
disease attributable to Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense, widespread in eastern and southern
Africa, is closely related to a common infection of cattle known as N’gana, which restricts cattle-
rearing in many prime areas of Africa. The chronic form caused by T.b. gambiense is found in
western and central Africa.
Cattle and other wild mammals act as reservoir hosts of the parasites. Tsetse flies can acquire
parasites by feeding on these animals or on an infected person. Incubation time usually varies from
three days to a few weeks for T.b. rhodesiense, and several weeks to months for T.b. gambiense.
Inside the human host, trypanosomes multiply and invade most tissues. Infection leads to malaise,
lassitude and irregular fevers. Early symptoms, which include fever and enlarged lymph glands
and spleen, are more severe and acute in T.b. rhodesiense infections. Advanced symptoms include
neurological and endocrine disorders. As the parasites invade the CNS, mental deterioration be-
gins, leading to coma and death.
Sleeping sickness claims comparatively few lives annually, but the risk of major epidemics
means that surveillance and ongoing control measures must be maintained, especially in sub-
Saharan Africa where 36 countries have epidemiological risk. Control relies mainly on systematic
surveillance of at-risk populations, coupled with treatment of infected people. In addition, reduc-
tion of tsetse fly numbers plays a significant role, especially against the rhodesiense form of the
disease. In the past, this has involved extensive clearance of bush to destroy tsetse fly breeding
and resting sites, and widespread application of insecticides. More recently, efficient traps and
screens have been developed that, usually with community participation, can keep tsetse popula-
tions at low levels in a cost-effective manner (38).
Schistosomiasis
Schistosomiasis is an infection with a relatively low mortality rate but a high morbidity rate; it
is endemic in 74 developing countries, with more than 80% of infected people living in sub-Sa-
haran Africa. Infection is caused by trematode flatworms (flukes) of the genus Schistosoma: in
freshwater, intermediate snail hosts release infective forms of the parasite. There are five spe-
cies of schistosomes able to infect humans: Schistosoma haematobium (the urinary form) and S.
japonicum, S. mekongi, S. mansoni and S. intercalatum (the “intestinal” forms).
If people are in contact with water where infected snails live, they become infected when larval
forms of the parasites penetrate their skin. Later, adult male and female schistosomes pair and
live together in human blood vessels. The females release eggs, some of which are passed out in
the urine (in S. haematobium infection) or stools (S. mansoni and S. japonicum), but some eggs
are trapped in body tissues. Immune reactions to eggs lodged in tissues are the cause of disease.
Systemic complications are bladder cancer, progressive enlargement of the liver and spleen,
intestinal damage due to fibrotic lesions around eggs lodged in these tissues, and hypertension
of the abdominal blood vessels. Most cases of cerebral schistosomiasis are observed with S.
japonicum, constituting 2–4% of all S. japonicum infections. However, CNS schistosomiasis also
can occur with other species and involves seizures, headache, back pain, bladder dysfunction,
paresthesias and lower limb weakness. Death is most often caused by bladder cancer associated
with urinary schistosomiasis and by bleeding from varicose veins in the oesophagus associated
with intestinal schistosomiasis. Children are especially vulnerable to infection, which develops
into chronic disease if not treated. Diagnosis is made by using urine filtration and faecal smear
techniques, antigen detection in endemic areas and antibody tests in non-endemic areas.
The disease is controlled through an integrated approach: drug treatment with praziquantel
or oxamniquine (effective only against S. mansoni), provision of an adequate safe water supply,
sanitation and health education (39).
Hydatidosis
Cystic hydatidosis/echinococcosis is an important zoonosis caused by the tapeworm Echino-
coccus granulosus. At present, four species of Echinococcus are recognized: E. granulosus, E.
multilocularis, E. oligarthrus and E. vogeli. The parasite is distributed worldwide and about 2–3
million patients are estimated in the world (40). It causes serious human suffering and consider-
able losses in agricultural and human productivity. General lack of awareness of transmission
factors and prevention measures among the population at risk, abundance of stray dogs, poor
meat inspection in abattoirs, improper disposal of offal and home slaughtering practices play a
role in the persistence of the disease.
The incidence of surgical cases ranges from 0.1 to 45 cases per 100 000 people. The real
prevalence ranges between 0.22% and 24% in endemic areas. Ultrasounds have been very use-
ful in large-scale prevalence surveys. Large prevalence studies have been conducted in many
countries: in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco and Tunisia, the prevalence ranged from 1%
to 2%.
In the normal life-cycle of Echinococcus species, adult tapeworms (3–6 mm long) inhabit the
small intestine of carnivorous definitive hosts, such as dogs, coyotes or wolves, and echinococcal
cyst stages occur in herbivorous intermediate hosts, such as sheep, cattle and goats. In most
infected countries there is a dog–sheep cycle in which grazing sheep ingest tapeworm eggs
passed in the faeces of an infected dog. Dogs ingest infected sheep viscera, mainly liver and lungs,
containing larval hydatid cysts in which numerous tapeworm heads are produced. These attach
to the dog’s intestinal lining and develop into mature adult tapeworms. Humans become infected
by ingesting food or drink contaminated with faecal material containing tapeworm eggs passed
from infected carnivores, or when they handle or pet infected dogs. Oncospheres released from
the eggs penetrate the intestinal mucosa and lodge in the liver, lungs, muscle, brain and other
organs, where the hydatid cysts form. In the CNS, hydatidosis produces spinal disease and also
is a potential cause of intracranial hypertension.
To control the parasite, a number of antihelminthic drugs have proved to be effective against
adult stages of E. granulosus in the final host. The best drug currently available is praziquantel
which exterminates all juvenile and adult echinococci from dogs. Several of the benzimidazole
compounds have been shown to have efficacy against the hydatid cyst in the intermediate host.
Echinococcosis can be controlled through preventive measures that break the cycle between the
definitive and the intermediate host. These measures include dosing dogs, inspecting meat and
educating the public on the risk to humans and the necessity to avoid feeding offal to dogs.
IMPLICATIONS AND PREVENTION

Infectious diseases that involve the nervous system affect millions of people around the world,
especially in some regions in Africa and South-East Asia. Most of these diseases can cause high
mortality rates in some populations and produce severe complications, disability and economic
burden for individuals, families and health systems. Even with the advent of effective antibiot-
ics and vaccines, they still remain a major challenge in many parts of the world, especially in
developing countries where the worst health indicators are found. Some diseases that had been
found in the developed world but have virtually disappeared, such as poliomyelitis, leprosy and
neurosyphilis, are still taking their toll in developing regions. Conversely, some of the protozoan
and helminthic infections that are so characteristic of the tropics are now being seen with increas-
ing frequency in developed countries. Other major concerns are the development of drug-resistant
organisms, the increasing number of immunocompromised populations and the rising number
of diseases previously considered rare. Education, surveillance, development of new drugs and
vaccines, and other policies are in constant evolution to fight against old and emerging infectious
diseases of the nervous system.
Some preventive measures have a more rapid impact and are more cost effective than others.
Regular, large-scale treatment to prevent disease is cheap, by treating carriers (i.e. humans or
dogs) to prevent humans from getting infected as an intermediate host, or to regularly lower the
worm load so that the person does not suffer from infection. Large-scale treatment in humans can
be combined for several diseases (the “preventive chemotherapy” concept), and can be packaged
in domestic animals — such as dogs — with other interventions such as rabies vaccination. The
basic idea is to deliver such public health treatment packages regularly, to enable people to avoid
the worst effects of infection, even with an ongoing lack of water, sanitation and hygiene. It has
to be said that environmental measures would eventually solve the problem, but require a much
more substantial investment and commitment. Some diseases are easily controlled and prevented
with basic, inexpensive measures that are available worldwide, but their effectiveness entails a
massive education effort and steady surveillance.

1 Neuroinfections constitute the sixth cause of neurological consultation in primary care
services worldwide and, even with the advent of effective antibiotics and vaccines, still
remain a major challenge in many parts of the world.
2 The global public health community is now faced with a more complex and diverse
pattern of adult disease than previously expected and proposes a double response that
integrates prevention and control of both communicable diseases and noncommunicable
diseases within a comprehensive health-care system.
3 Some diseases that had virtually disappeared from the developed world are still taking
their toll in developing regions. Conversely, some of the protozoan and helminthic
infections that are so characteristic of the tropics are now being seen with increasing
frequency in developed countries.
4 Other major concerns are the development of drug-resistant organisms, the increasing
number of immunocompromised populations and the rising number of diseases previously
considered rare.
5 Education, surveillance, development of new drugs and vaccines and other public policies
are in constant evolution to fight against old and emerging infectious diseases of the
nervous system.
REFERENCES
1. The world health report 2003 – Shaping the future. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2003.
2. The world health report 1996 – Fighting disease, fostering development. Geneva, World Health Organization,
1996.
3. Atlas: Country resources for neurological disorders 2004. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2004.
4. HIV/AIDS: a guide for nutrition, care and support. Geneva, United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS and
World Health Organization, 2001.
5. AIDS epidemic update 2005. Geneva, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and World Health
Organization, 2005.
6. Budka H. Neuropathology of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Brain Pathology, 1991, 1:163–175.
7. Bacellar H et al. Temporal trends in the incidence of HIV-1-related neurologic diseases: Multicenter AIDS
Cohort Study, 1985–1992. Neurology, 1994, 44:1892–1900.
8. Gray F et al. The changing pattern of HIV neuropathology in the HAART era. Journal of Neuropathology and
Experimental Neurology, 2003, 62:429–440.
9. Treisman G, Kaplin A. Neurologic and psychiatric complications of antiretroviral agents. AIDS, 2002,
16:1201–1215.
10. Jordan-Harder B et al. Thirteen years HIV-1 sentinel surveillance and indicators for behavioural change
suggest impact of programme activities in south-west Tanzania. AIDS, 2004, 18:287–294.
11. Kennedy PGE. Viral encephalitis: causes, differential diagnosis and management. Journal of Neurology,
Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 2004, 75(Suppl. I):10–15.
12. Lopez W. West Nile virus in New York City. American Journal of Public Health, 2002, 92:1218–1221.
13. Global eradication of poliomyelitis by the year 2000. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1988 (World Health
Assembly resolution WHA41.28).
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Human rabies – Montana and Washington, 1997. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 1997, 46:770–774.
15. Global tuberculosis control: surveillance, planning and financing. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2006
(WHO/HTM/TB/2006.362).
16. The Stop TB strategy. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2006 (WHO/HTM/TB/2006.368).
17. Kox LFF, Kuijper S, Kolk AHJ. Early diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis by polymerase chain reaction.
Neurology, 1995, 45:2228–2232.
18. Bourdin Trunz B, Fine PEM, Dye C. Effect of BCG vaccination on childhood tuberculous meningitis and miliary
tuberculosis worldwide: a meta-analysis and assessment of cost-effectiveness. Lancet, 2006, 367:1175–
1182.
19. International standards for tuberculosis care. The Hague, Tuberculosis Coalition for Technical Assistance,
2006.
20. Van de Beek D et al. Community-acquired bacterial meningitis in adults. New England Journal of Medicine,
2006, 354:44–53.
21. Wright JP, Ford HL. Bacterial meningitis in developing countries. Tropical Doctor, 1995, 25:5–8.
22. Van de Beek D et al. Steroids in adults with bacterial meningitis: a systematic review. Lancet Infectious
Diseases, 2004, 4:139–143.
23. The world health report 2005 – Make every mother and child count. Geneva, World Health Organization,
2005.
24. Sanchez AL et al. A population based, case-control study of Taenia solium taeniasis and cysticercosis.
Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, 1999, 93:247–258.
25. García HH et al. The Cysticercosis Working Group in Peru. Taenia solium cysticercosis. Lancet, 2003,
362:547–556.
26. Rodriguez-Salinas L, Medina MT. Stroke in developing countries. In: Bogousslavsky J et al., eds. Stroke:
selected topics. New York, World Federation of Neurology and Demos Medical Publishing, 2006:49–62
(Seminars in Clinical Neurology, in press).
27. Medina MT et al. Neurocysticercosis as the main cause of late-onset epilepsy in Mexico. Archives of Internal
Medicine, 1990, 150:325–327.
28. Gemmel M et al. Guidelines for surveillance, prevention and control of taeniasis/cysticercosis. Geneva, World
Health Organization, 1983 (WHO/VPH/83.49).
29. Montano SM et al, The Cysticercosis Working Group in Peru. Neurocysticercosis: association between
seizures, serology and brain CT in rural Peru. Neurology, 2005, 65:229–233.
30. Del Brutto OH et al. Proposed diagnostic criteria for neurocysticercosis. Neurology, 2001, 57:177–183.
31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations of the International Task Force for Disease
Eradication. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1993, 42:1–38.
32. Roman G et al. A proposal to declare neurocysticercosis an international reportable disease. Bulletin of the
World Health Organization, 2000, 78:399–406.
33. Mung’Ala-Odera V, Snow RW, Newton CR. The burden of the neurocognitive impairment associated with
Plasmodium falciparum malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene,
2004, 71(Suppl. 2):64–70.
34. Newton CR, Hien TT, White N. Cerebral malaria. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 2000,
69:433–441.
35. Trikha I, Wig N. Management of toxoplasmosis in AIDS. Indian Journal of Medical Sciences, 2001, 55:87–98.
36. Umezawa ES et al. Chagas disease. Lancet, 2001, 357:797–799.
37. Dias JC. Control of Chagas disease in Brazil. Parasitology Today, 1987, 3:336–341.
38. UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR).
Geneva, World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/tdr/diseases/tryp/diseaseinfo.htm).
39. Craig PS, Rogan MT, Allan JC. Detection, screening and community epidemiology of taeniid cestode
zoonoses: cystic echinococcosis, alveolar echinococcosis and neurocysticercosis. Advances in Parasitology,
1996, 38:169–250.
40. Oku Y et al. Control program against hydatidosis and the decreased prevalence in Uruguay. International
Congress Series, 2004, 1267:98–104.
RECOMMENDED READING
■ Craig PS, Rogan MT, Allan JC. Detection, screening and community epidemiology of taeniid cestode
zoonoses: cystic echinococcosis, alveolar echinococcosis and neurocysticercosis. Advances in Parasitology,
1996, 38:169–250.
■ Eckert MA et al., eds. Manual on echinococcosis in humans and animals: a public health problem of global
concern. Paris, World Health Organization and Office International des Epizooties, 2001.
■ García HH, Del Brutto OH. The Cysticercosis Working Group in Peru. Neurocysticercosis: updated concepts
about an old disease. Lancet Neurology, 2005, 4:653–661.
■ García HH, Gonzalez AE, Gilman RH. The Cysticercosis Working Group in Peru. Diagnosis, treatment and
control of Taenia solium cysticercosis. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 2003, 16:411–419.
■ Gendelman HE, Persidsky Y. Infections of the nervous system. Lancet Neurology, 2005, 4:12–13.
■ Medina MT, DeGiorgio C. Introduction to neurocysticercosis: a worldwide epidemic. Neurosurgery Focus,
2002, 12:6 (http://www.neurosurg.focus.org/jun02/12-6-nsf-toc.html).
■ Medina MT et al. Prevalence, incidence, and etiology of epilepsies in rural Honduras: the Salama study.
Epilepsia, 2005, 46:124–131.
■ Raviglione MC, Snider DE, Kochi A. Global epidemiology of tuberculosis: morbidity and mortality of a
worldwide epidemic. JAMA, 1995, 273:220.
■ Román G. Cerebral malaria: the unsolved riddle. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 1991, 101:1–6.
■ Román G et al. A proposal to declare neurocysticercosis an international reportable disease. Bulletin of the
World Health Organization, 2000, 78:399–406.
■ Shakir B, Newman P, Poser CH. Tropical neurology. London, WB Saunders Company, 1996.
■ Uplekar MW, Antia NH. Clinical and histopathological observations on pure neuritic leprosy. Indian Journal of
Leprosy, 1986, 58:513–521.
■ AIDS epidemic update 2005. Geneva, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and World Health
Organization, 2005.
■ Atlas: Country resources for neurological disorders 2004. Geneva, World Health Organization (2004).
■ The Stop TB strategy. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2006 (WHO/HTM/TB/2006.368).

Chapter 3 A Neuro Disorders Public H Challenges

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chapter 3 A Neuro Disorders Public H Challenges

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

40 Neurological disorders: public health challenges

70 3.3 Headache disorders

85 3.4 Multiple sclerosis

43 Course and outcome

ETIOLOGY AND RISK FACTORS

COURSE AND OUTCOME

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND BURDEN

Box 3.1.1 Stages and symptoms of dementia (Alzheimer’s disease)

Early stage Middle stage Late stage

Disability, burden and cost

TREATMENT AND CARE

Resources and prevention

Box 3.1.2 The 10/66 Dementia Research Group: key ﬁndings

A PUBLIC HEALTH FRAMEWORK

Table 3.1.1 Minimum actions required for dementia carea

Ten overall Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Box 3.1.3 Case-study: Brazil

Box 3.1.4 Case-study: India

Box 3.1.5 Case-study: Nigeria

Etiology and risk factors

COURSE AND OUTCOME

Box 3.2.1 Types of epileptic seizure

I. Generalized onset II. Focal onset III. Neonatal

Source: adapted from (2).

Incidence by age, sex and socioeconomic status

Prevalence by age, sex and socioeconomic status

BURDEN ON PATIENTS, FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES

Epidemiological assessment of the global burden of epilepsy

80 40% 42% 41% 40% 37%

Economic assessment of the national burden of epilepsy

The avertable burden of epilepsy

Figure 3.2.2 Attributable and avertable burden of epilepsy in an

Not avertable with first line AEDs (40%)

Already averted Avertable via scaling up of

TREATMENT, REHABILITATION AND COST

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

PARTNERSHIPS WITHIN AND BEYOND THE HEALTH SYSTEM

ILAE/IBE/WHO Global Campaign Against Epilepsy

Box 3.2.2 ILAE/IBE/WHO Global Campaign Against Epilepsy

Objectives Strategy Activities

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.3 Headache disorders

Figure 3.3.1 Population-based epidemiological

Africa 4.0 (2 studies)

Figure 3.3.2 Population-based epidemiological

Table 3.3.1 Classiﬁcation of headache disorders

TYPES OF HEADACHE DISORDERS

Serious secondary headaches

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND BURDEN

Box 3.3.1 Serious secondary headaches (headaches to worry about)

Political and economic barriers

MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION

Predisposing and trigger factors

Box 3.3.2 Seven elements of good headache management

of agent is guided by comorbidities and contraindications. Because poor compliance is a major

Serious secondary headaches

FOLLOW-UP AND REFERRAL

PARTNERSHIPS WITHIN AND BEYOND THE HEALTH SYSTEM

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

33. Awada A, al Jumah M. The ﬁrst-of-Ramadan headache. Headache, 1999, 39:490–493.

3.4 Multiple sclerosis